Is there something special about the depth-of-field offered by medium format? Chris and Jordan look closely at the effect of format size on depth-of-field to find out.
Shallow depth-of-field is often cited as being a key part of the 'medium format look' but is that actually true? Our Canadian friends shot some side-by-side examples to check.
Inevitably, since this video compares sensor sizes, it touches on equivalence and why it can make sense to think about equivalent f-numbers when comparing formats.
Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review). Please refrain from using them for any commercial purposes.
Something that always seems to be overlooked is lens design. Its much easier to make a F2.8 lens than a F2 lens and F1.4 is harder still. So its easier to design better lenses with less aberrations for a given DOF with larger formats because they don't have to be as fast to get the same DOF. You don't go larger format for more DOF you go there for better image quality.
Part of whats changed I would say is that MF is no longer really a mass produced format the way it was in the film era. I think thats really whats allowed FF to catch up and arguably surpass it in terms of value for money for DOF control ability.
If you go below FF then getting the equivalent of F/1.4 FF lenses does start to become significantly more expensive as you can see with the M43 29mm F/0.8 lens. Not saying those lenses arent worthwhile buys for people using those systems BUT I would question buying into those systems if extreme DOF control is the main thing your after.
In terms of depth of field though I think the one area this video doesn't cover is how you display the image. The larger your display size is the shallower DOF will appear to be as the loss of detail outside of critical focus will be more obvious.
In that respect I think you could argue MF does have the advantage in that its superior resolution will allow for larger display sizes at maximum detail which will show up shallower DOF.
In video, too, very shallow depth if field is very distracting and used mostly for effect to visualize disorientation. As a stylistic element, it's overrated. Like you said, at large display sizes (my projector is set up to make a 120 inch image) you still get plenty of subject separation at F8. Of course it helps if you know how to use color and brightness contrast to your advantage, as well.
There have been some good points made about depth of field being impacted by focal length and aperture. Besides that, the subjective aspects, type of bokeh created by different lens designs and sensor size (because it impacts what focal length a person would use for a given scene) will have some impact. One thing I notice in many DOF conversations is that it is often used to describe shallow depth of field when in fact, it just means depth of field, and the focal length, aperture combination is used to create a shallow/narrow depth of field to isolate a subject or a very deep/wide depth of field to maintain focus and details in more areas of the image. I tend to use the terms shallow DOF or deep DOF. It's more specific and less confusing.
Some kind of magic technology maybe (quantum lenses), but software, no. Software will never be 100% accurate with scene analysis, and don't forget that if it happens in the camera it has to happen in real time.
People use SDOF for artistic shots or lack of light. If sensors continue to improve to the point that ISO 6400 has no IQ hit compared to ISO 100. Light issue will be partly solved.
Artistic shots generally have post processing, control the DOF after the fact is better than trying to get it correct at the time of the shot. Get the whole scene in focus with as much detail as possible. Adjust in post to liking. It is easier to remove detail than add.
Software is not there yet, since it takes time to manually perfect what parts of the image should be "blurred and by how much", so fast lenses still have a place.
If software becomes 100% accurate then cameras will be obsolete, and the victory will go to cellphones. That's a fact. I don't see 100% accuracy though, in fact, it's pretty much near 0% accuracy at the moment. Sure "portrait mode" on the iPhone kind of looks ok at a distance, but the reality is it's pretty much 100% inaccurate, not the other way around. But just speaking about lenses in terms of light gathering and bokeh just shows how ignorant you are of what lenses really do.
@trungtran: sensors cannot improve to that extent, because even taking their CFA into account, they are already within roughly two stops of capturing 100% of the light that falls onto them. So, even a theoretically perfect sensor that also doesn’t need to filter out part of the light to capture color would have ISO 6400 look like current cameras do at ISO 1600, not 100.
I love the medium format for its great and lightweight super telephoto lens selection, especially when these beautiful lenses are put on super fast GFX bodies that can shoot up to astounding 5fps!!1 ;)
It seems like a more useful comparison would be each system using its most popular fast glass wide open. Like comparing the Sony 24mm 1.4 to pretty much anything at that focal length, wide open. There are obviously limits to what you can do with glass at a given sensor size and that wasn’t addressed. There’s a reason Fuji does not make a lot of F1.0 lenses.
Indeed, Full frame proves itself optimal in so many use cases because of it's ability to utilize the full capability of "reasonably sized" and "reasonably priced" lenses. Smaller sensors don't have the resolving power and dynamic range for the same sized lens and larger sensors (particularly when they're 50mp) don't bring additional benefits compared to their size and price propositions.
The video quickly mentions that the 100mp 44x33mm sensor is a much more meaningful improvement to FF should that level of detail be necessary. Similarly, I'm sure there are some that point to not needing 24mp and see FF as needless expense over APS-C.
Mosc your point is extremely important. All these comparisons are based on very vague criteria. There are better and worse lenses from all manufacturers and better and worse cameras and processors. None of that is specified.
I think the headline is misleading. Depth of field is dependent on focal length of the lens, the aperture in use and the focusing distance. To get the same angle of view on different size (in dimension) sensors will require different focal length of lens. Therefore smaller sensor requires shorter focal length and larger sensor requires longer focal length lens. Using same settings on different size sensors will give you different DoF but if you calculate and use appropriate wide aperture on smaller sensor and similarly smaller aperture on larger sensor, you should be able to achieve near enough DoP.
Shallow depth of field is not a phenomenon that I learned about in my photography education. In general, selective focus is useful technique that warrants about a paragraph's worth of discussion in a book on photography. "Shallow depth of field" is a pure marketing term.
Techniques are whatever we want them to be which are Most times very subjective in terms of what folks are claiming to be actually doing. So there is literally no real right or wrong on how folks choose to express their own photography. So Telling folks otherwise is pure marketing.
I learned techniques (lighting, sensitivity, utilizing dynamic range) to maximize depth of field. I feel like shallow depth of field is an over-used compositional crutch, popularized by wedding photographers who did not have time for background compositions and staged shots like in a studio. Simply blur out what's behind the bride and you can save time and money compared to properly staging and framing the shot. We've paradoxically become obsessed with the look of laziness as a sign of quality and even shout preference for "blowing out" the background in nearly any scene, whither the background would have added to the composition or not.
Background detail doesn't take away from your subject, it provides context.
Of course sometimes it's dark, particularly indoors, and getting the shot with shallow depth of field is better than not getting the shot at all. That's not how these lenses are marketed however...
"Background detail doesn't take away from your subject, it provides context."
True. You need some detail, maybe a lot of detail, in an environmental portrait. The surroundings tales a story about the subject. You can find other reasons for background detail. When Alliance Airport still allowed you on the apron at airshows, I would include the control tower in background of a parked plane. For people familiar with Alliance, the tower told the viewer where the shot was taken. Also the control tower has a nice design, so it added to the photo more than a plain rectangular tower.
bang for buck thou full frame is a better option for fast lenses as you have to get a stop faster to get the same in aps-c. Truly fast aps-c are considerably more expensive
If you want one system for everything, get the largest sensor you can get with the least amount of compromise. For most of us that would be FF standard developed years ago. I do realize compromise is different for each person. Size, price, access to lenses etc are all things to consider. The 'look' can be manipulated in digital to provide the output desired. Is MF better because of a bigger sensor, perhaps but at the expense of flexibility.
Using 35mm cinema film sideways was a cost-cutting shortcut for amateurs who couldn't afford roll film. Nothing "designed as a standard" or "optimal" about it, it's merely an artifact of historically grown, now obsolete technology.
There is no "fullframe", ppl don't get this out of their heads. Every Sensor (size) is being full frame, if the output is not being cropped. It's _just_ Small picture Format -Kleinbildformat, 36x24mm. (135) 35mm Film.
Since ca. 2005, this "Fullframe" moniker B$ all over the world.
Marc- The fact that I say FF and you find it somehow offensive means you understand what it means, and that in itself means it is recognized for what it is. Just a word. Or two words.
A nerve? Not at all, and if you read my post you'd see I said your confusing what a troll is. Your one of those are so bubbling over with spitting out stuff you just read the first 3 words and respond. I made a point you took it to name calling.
You peeps insulting others can considered yourself being trolls - that's an insult from you guys. I am reading DPR here since late 1999, so i know this site way better than you. And online since 2014, FYI.
Into fact - you're not german, and not being aware, that Oskar Barnack, which created the Ur-Leica into 2014, created the 36x24mm Small Picture Format, and since Film that kind of exists, it was always being called exactly like that, which is a historical fact - so you can all troll yourself, and think what you want.
Into a time, whereas there was only Large format and some diverse Medium Format Photography, Small picture format was exactly that - Kleinbildformat, after it's german origin, that's a historical fact you ignore.
Some guy gave it only this moniker, to explain that since the Contax N digital, EOS 1Ds - the sensor size is now on partity with ordinary 135 (35mm) 36x24mm format - and some people simply can't understand that, because before this, digital was APS-C/H only.
The basic message here: you cannot beat the laws of optics. There is a big fuss about stuff which is trival and parially missleading. The DOF only depends on the aperture and the focal length as Chris pointed out nicely, but the forgot to mentioned that aperture strongly influences the exposure time. People seam to overestimate the advantage of a shallow DOF. MF was often used for landscape photography. Here you have to stop down quite a bit, since you want a large DOF, or even work with a hyperfocal distance setting on manual focus camera to maximize the DOF. But than bad things happen. In MF you need to close the aperture much more, leading to long exposure times. If you use the larger format for more megapixels, you also run into the diffraction limit much earlier. In that sense, the advantage of higher resolution sensors need to be counterbalance by larger diffraction do to the larger f-stop for the same DOF. Essentially, all formats have pros and cons!
you are right, you just cannot beat the laws of physics. That's why you hit the diffraction "limit" earlier on smaller sensors. So no bad thing is happening when you close the aperture on a MF system, where the maximum circle of confusion is proportionally larger than on FF or APS-C or such...
Once freed from the limitations of film, it became obvious that DOF is a useful fiction, and that "hyperfocal distance" means every important element in a landscape is out of focus.
That doesn't mean DOF is useless, since it can be used to de-emphasize lesser elements of an image. However DOF is dependent on many assumptions, including the degree of enlargement, and the meaning of "equivalence." Change any of those assumptions and you reach a different conclusion.
The authors of this article did an excellent job of defining their assumptions, and their conclusions were consistent with those parameters. In science and engineering, the conclusions are never as important as the assumptions and methods. That's something to think about when we are bombarded with "science" in other matters.
The bokeh hounds have gotten us to the point where Aperture is to control Depth of Field and exposure is just one of those things aperture happens to "influence"...
This Fujifilm "medium format" camera system offers 3 things that are different from full frame: -100 MP. Still not available in full frame. This will reduce the apparent depth of field in large prints. -An excellent pixel level image quality at base ISO. I have not compared it to every full frame sensor out there, but it looks superior to my Nikon D850. -4:3 image aspect ratio. I find this aspect ratio very useful for my photographic projects. In every other regard it may well be inferior to full frame systems. The biggest drawback for me is the lack of a native tilt shif lens.
The article does not give us much background information and actually is somewhat misleading.
While there obviously is no 'magic' behind specific formats, it strongly seems as if FF would be the format that offers the shallowest depth of field of them all, by offering the largest absolute apertures (and, thereby and in other words, equivalent apertures) in its actually existing lens assortment.
MF could be that format as well, just by its manufacturers putting more effort into superfast MF lenses.
And there seems to be a tendency that makes shallow depth of field easier for larger formats. We just need to look at MFT. Yes, there are beautiful superfast lenses like Voigtländer's 29mm f/0.8. But we can easily see that they need complex designs if they're also supposed to offer sufficiently good IQ, making them big, heavy and expensive compared to what we find for FF. After all, any decent 50mm f/1.4 used on a FF camera will be able to do anything we can do with that Voigtländer.
Maybe I missed the point but seems like that you just expalined that 1*10000 is equals with 10*1000 or 100*100. I would be rather interested to see if you only make the focal lengths equivalent and use the same aperture ( 1.8 or 2.8 for example) for all the different sensor sizes.
That would make the same sense as testing all cameras with different apertures but same focal length... what's the point? The video is about the alleged impossibility to replicate the (now no longer) "mystical look" of MF exclusively in terms of DOF. For that you have to use the equivalency in everything. And considering that modern MF lenses don't reach such wide apertures as FF or APS-C, it even makes more sense.
You're absoulutely right but i just dont understand who should be surprised of this result. Hard to believe that there are people out there who deny that if you apply equivalency the way as it was applied in the video things should be different. I mean people who used cameras before. Mybe i am naive.
Remember there many people arguing in comments who's understanding of photography is all academic because they're read and possibly misunderstood some article, as opposed to actually just going out and shooting to see how things work first hand.
Back when I was shooting medium and large format film, I never did it to have shallow depth of field, rather it was a struggle to get sufficient DOF, hence futzing around with tilting the focal plane on large format to avoid stopping down too far. For those that got into photography (video) in the digital age, shallow DOF was a visual feature that didn’t come easily when using compact point and shoot, or later cell phones. Thus, for that transition generation, shallow DOF means expensive and we are conditioned by marketing to equate that with desireable. These days though, anyone who wants that look can have it computationally. Once everyone can have it, it will no longer be cool, and cool kids will talk about something else to seperate themselves from the unwashed masses.
It’s the way of the world. Once upon a time, starburst filter were all the rage. Fuzzy noses and ears will return to admittedly looking weird in portraits.
shooting closeup portraits @f1.2 and blowing ears and tip of the nose out of focus is not the point of an f1.2 lens IMO. Instead for a full body portrait f1.2 is necessary to soften the background enough for a pleasing photo IMO. And portraits with smooth out of focus background will win any day in a blind test vs busy backgrounds, but thats surely is also a matter of quality not quanitity...
"anyone who wants that look can have it computationally" – no. Without exact distance information for every pixel of an image, computational blurriness will never be sufficiently good for serious photography.
Considering most modern sensors contain phase detection distance it is actually quite possible, they just need to store the phase detection in RAW and it will have computation. Most modern phones can do this but of course there are limitations in quality until we can put phase detection into each pixel or improve edge detection algorithms for shapes. In theory you can also make 3D images this way also although you will only see it from one side unless you include more than one photo of data to the system. The question then becomes what is a tasteful amount of bokeh, and can we do weird things like making two different distanced parts in focus like they did in Star Trek.
EclairzRed: It's not that easy. For one, most modern sensors only contain a few phase detection pixels; as far as I know, only Canon can switch any pixel between photo and phase detection. And even then, a pixel's phase detection readout does not output distance, it just outputs "sharp" or "not". To get the necessary information for all pixels of an image, or even if we'd limit ourselves to a few thousand pixels instead of the 20+ millions our sensors have, for each of those pixels the lens would have to be focused once and each time the resulting lens distance information would have to be recorded. As mechanics are involved, this won't become quick enough for normal photography in the foreseeable future. Worse still, with sufficiently small formats and sufficiently slow lenses, everything further away than some distance x will be in focus when x is what's being focused on. So, if we have that huge depth of field we'd want to overcome, PDAF isn't even a solution.
"And portraits with smooth out of focus background will win any day in a blind test vs busy backgrounds"
If we're having a blurry background, what's the point at all in having a background. We could just take a picture of someone/something in front of a green wall, make it whatever we want and that would 'win' every time.
I don't know, I don't get the appeal of shallow DoF. To me, it once meant that I was using a quality DSLR instead of a compact camera and somehow I am conditioned to like it. But unless there is something we don't want to see, what's the point in taking the picture with a blurred background? art or some shapes we wouldn't get otherwise?
"I don't know, I don't get the appeal of shallow DoF" "what's the point in taking the picture with a blurred background"
of course theres some personal preference to it, i'm all for "slower" lenses (f2 or 2.8) that have very smooth bokeh transitions (sigma 45f2.8C) instead of "faster" lenses (f1.8) with busy bokeh wide open. But there is no denial that i'd like my subjects to pop, not the background. Shallower DoF also gives a 3D effect, making an image more true to life IMO. Which aperture works best also depends on lens characteristics.
Btw: when i strarted with photography (not too long ago) i was baffled that my premium P&S from 2015 wouldnt produce images as pleasing/aesthetic as what my parents used in the 1980s. Turns out it was the shallower DoF that i liked, already when i was pretty unbiased.
@larkhon "I don't get the appeal of shallow DoF" – then there's probably not much use in trying to explain. Still, a large aperture doesn't necessarily mean a completely blurred background. It can also mean a just somewhat blurred background behind a more distant object, just to let the subject stand out while still giving the viewer an idea of the surroundings. Whereas with a slower lens everything would be sharp.
@hubertus: "just to let the subject stand out while still giving the viewer an idea of the surroundings"
yes, the question is, what should have the priority? there is no debate, if we're recording action, weddings, any form of interaction between people, we want to isolate our subject. If the surroundings are of interest, it is a shame to blur them out. Of course, even with smaller aperture or sensors you get a blurry background from a distance, and it's fine. Maybe I should rephrase and say I don't see the appeal of a f0.95 lens on FF.
@phouphou: I guess it's like wine. When you do a proper wine tasting you learn what to look for and why you think one is better. I just wonder if we're totally objective about shallow DoF. When I look at the way movies are filmed, when they focus on dialogs they film them as a portrait with a background blur made of shades/patches of green. We're so used to it, it seems natural, but is it really?
The appeal of fast FF lenses is that you can stand even further back and still isolate the subject . It gives a very unique look that many people will find is attractive. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bastian_k/51732653057/sizes/o/ Generally i think a debate about what is natural is pointless - since its art everything that people like is allowed. But i wont deny that there might be a trend of using faster f-stops than what would be "ideal" for the scene (ideal as in what most would find most attractive). We're kind of force to use lenses wide open though, since many struggle with rendering bokeh smoothly onced stopped down.
@larkhon: in addition to what @phouphou said, "If the surroundings are of interest, it is a shame to blur them out" – I'd make that "if the surroundings are of interest for the specific image I want to create, it is a shame to blur them out".
@phouphou: again, it depends on the subject, and as soon as it's a human being, we want them to stand out. I do it all the time too, I understand that appeal. But let's say I shoot with a 85mm f1.2, why would I shoot in a particular location at a particular time? why not a studio? I'll join the OP in saying if it's f1.2 blurry, a computer can do it too. Just take a look at the samples of the RF 85mm f1.2 on Canon's website, some of them are portraits that could be done any place.
Then I'm wondering, we spent years using faster lenses partly because we had no other choice in low light, to freeze action and/or keep the noise at bay. Also if you needed top IQ, but now we have some best in class f1.8 prime lenses and slow zooms with decent IQ.
Medium format look came from past when large enormous negative sizes were taken into account. Those who shot Pentax 6x7 with 105 2.5 lens knows what medium format look is.
Digital sensors compared are good for resolution wise but smaller than baby medium format of 6x4.5. At least they should compare phase one backs at a minimum.
Medium format look exist very much but not so much in digital cameras.
Still, images shot with that 105mm f/2.5 on the Pentax 6x7 will always look very much like those shot with a 50mm f/1.2 on a 24x36 camera. Apart from the substantially better image quality of the larger negative.
Medium format today and in the past decades were practically 120 film photography, most typically 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7. A 6x7 frame is enormously bigger than a 135 frame. Digital Medium Format has completely lost this difference, it is only slightly bigger than Digital FF where the frame size is the same as 135 film. Digital Medium Format has nothing to do with the 120 film frame sizes we got used to. 120 film photography is still enormously popular today and this is the reason we dont really like that the term was abused for marketing reasons in digital camera world.
We should really call the the sensor sizes with an acronym or code, maybe DX, FX, MX, LX, could work and to differentiate them from each other. I would really like see a 6x7 sensor and then compare.
@Nikonese You would love to see it as digital back on Your Mamiya? I don't think it will happen, it would be a $25000 gizmo, if technically feasible at all. Even these 44x33 sensors are brutally more expensive than the 35x24 sensors.
You can put fast FF lenses on a 44x33 sensor giving even shallower apparent depth of field. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62718313 Sigma 105mm F1.4 will cover the GFX sensor.
The Sigma 105mm F1.4 is awesome adapted to GFX. A great combination for portraits. For street, rather less so - you tend to notice that 105mm-filter-size! howitzer when it’s pointing your way…
Definitely, 44x33 is 70% bigger than 35x24 and a 44x33 sensor can easily accommodate 100M pixels. The practical problem is the enormously high cost of making so big sensors, which leads high prices, less sales volume, and even higher prices, while 35x24 digital systems with fantastic 50- 64M sensors with myriads of high quality affordable f1.4 lenses made esoteric 44x33 systems practically obsolated. Fujifilm made an enormously big mistake not making FF digital cameras. They would be big sellers with the x-pro or x-t dials retro design and Fuji FF lenses. Yummy. 135 is the sweet spot both film and digital. 99% of the lenses ever made are for 135 format.
Havanna couldn't agree more, not to mention the resistance from X system users who go berserk when you question the apsc format. In fujis defense FF sensors were not so easy to source and use when they started the system but it looks a rather odd choice now. I tried it but couldn't wait to sell it all on
@Havanna: 10-15 years ago, FF sensors were extremely expensive and APS-C cameras were a lor cheaper than FF ones.
Fuji already produces cheaper MF cameras than some FF ones. In 5 years the price between FF and MF will be even smaller. I think Fuji was very smart to invest in MF 5 years ago instead of going FF as everyone else.
This is a very debatable discussion and much depends upon how you look at it.
(S)MF camera's will not get that much cheaper as they currently already are now in contrary to Full Frame. It all has to do with production volume and the number of sensors an OEM client orders.
Why does Fujifilm put all and the same sensor in their APS-C cameras of the same generation?
Right - Because they order x gazzillion of these same sensors to put them in 5 different camera's as to lower costs.
Can't bring out 5 different High end GFX models with the same sensor. Yet they do with the currently 10 year old 50MP sensor. But that camera is not high-end and Fuji ordered all of Sony stock for this sensor. (this 'new' GFX 50s MKII will be the last of this model).
At the same time Sony develops for Full Frame is making room for more FF sensor production at the cost of APS-C sensor production. Lowering cost due to mass production, yet making the cost of APS-C and SMF higher.
The GFX sensor is a uncut 4x APS-C sensor. When carefully looking at the sensor of a GFX you can even see it consists of 4 seperate (APS-C) sensors melted (uncut) to one.
Than there is the problem with yield. Costs for smaller sensors is always lower with larger sensor sizes as every wafer has some sensors with production faults. These of course can not be used and are waste. The larger the sensor the larger the waste.
So do not expect to have a SMF sensor for the same cost as current a full frame sensor in the near future. If ever... It is just not going to happen.
Fujifilm appr. holds about 2% of the larger sensor segment (35mm and larger). That accumulates to about only 25.000 units sold compared to 1.85 million Full Frame cameras sold overt he last year.
This shows in numbers that you can't expect the price of a GFX come much lower than they currently are.
Fujifilm was smart to want to 'own' this market, but at the same time could have made more money going with FF if...
If Fujifilm would have gotten foot on ground in the FF segment.
This is the whole questionmark. Look at Panasonic - No feet on ground in this segment - That could have happened to Fujifilm as well if they had went with Full Frame.
I personally think Fujifilm would have succeeded, but management clearly thought they wouldn't.
What we are going to see over the next 5 years to happen is that Canon will most likely get the largest stake in the FF segment with close finishes of Sony and Nikon. The three will all have a large stake in this segment of the market and offering hardly no room for others.
Fujifilm is not willing to fight for its position and feels comfortable in their niches. This is why you will never see Fujifilm going full frame. All they want is getting a steady foot on ground in the upper segment of the camera market and in that they will succeed.
But do not expect Fuji to exceed a large scale production of the GFX compared to Full Frame. It is just not going to happen.
The future of Fujifilm isn't decided much by the GFX line... it'll be there and it's not going anywhere any time soon. The question is when the bleeding from below end. Olympus is out, Panasonic's GH5 was excellent but in 2022 there's so many other great video cameras now that it's hard to get excited about MFT.
Sony has more or less shut down their APS-C line, allegedely because of the pandemic but they never announce the end of a line they just let it wither and die. EF-M looks dead. Nikon's DX lineup is really thin. If Fujifilm manages to keep APS-C going their "high and low" strategy will work, if not GFX won't save them.
Market experts including Canon think we are bottoming out at about the current sales numbers. So let us see if that holds. At the same time there is a clear shift towards mid to high-end.
This is supported by other sales figures: 2017 - 73% of camera sales were APS-C or MFT vs 27% FF and larger 2018 - 68% of camera sales were APS-C or MFT vs 32% FF and larger 2019 - 66% of camera sales were APS-C or MFT vs 34% FF and larger 2020 - 60% of camera sales were APS-C or MFT vs 40% FF and larger 2021 - its going to look it will come out to 53% vs 47%
Mid this year (2022) the market expect to sell more Full Frame cameras than there will be APS-C cameras sold.
Now you also start to see why Sony is willing to cut off APS-C sales and why Canon and Nikon seem to show less and less interest in this segment.
Fuji will stay clear of any big problems if they are able to keep hold onto their userbase. This is the challenge.
In the end it is all about money to be made, and not what you or I prefer.
@Bigsensorisbest I'm just saying film shooters that came up with the term "Medium Format" disagree with you.
Comments keep saying "Medium Format refers to the film days when people used 120 film!" But those film people didn't define Medium Format (or any format) based off the film size. Ansel Adams goes on to define Medium Format by the type of camera, not the size of film in it: "In function, as in size, most of these cameras represent a compromise between the rapid operation of a 35mm camera and the static, fully controlled approach of a 4x5 or larger view camera."
If you're going to redefine Medium Format for the digital age fine; but don't try to invoke "tradition" or "film photography" for your justification. Traditionally medium format has always been, "larger than 35mm but smaller than 4x5"
Keren, don't agree and neither does Ken Rockwell :-) I think a new phrase like 'super full frame' would be far more appropriate but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I dont think Mr Adam's would have been too impressed by the GFX sensor size but I could see him buying one
Karen. I knew someone would say that. If you look at his photography, he’s been critically called the ‘new ansel adams’ and takes consistently better photos than 99% of photographers I can think of. His reliance on jpegs is slightly odd but his opinions are mostly correct
all things being equivalent. I guess the Full frame has more lenses selection to do more for the DoF. I don't see 800mm option for MF. If you adapt that somehow its image circle might be a little larger than FF, as most glasses do overcover the sensor. Probably no AF just manual.
In reality software and smart computing does take away of physical world advantage. I use Lumianr AL. I can shoot f5.6 and make I took like f1.8 with the DoF control. Overall I think it did great. The other thing is you can photo stitch photos like landscape. I did this and it does do a great look for portrait.
I say the advantage for MF is it can have higher Megapixel (without stitching), since the same sensor tech of the time is being used to cut, is just larger. Dynamic range should be better on the MF with similar tech. Anyways this is the same debate of aps-c vs Fullframe again....
Excellent and brave work taking on a seemingly emotional topic. Would love to see some exploration of the optics engineering that go into the focus fall off and lens speed.
Henry honestly there's something about GFX pictures which sparkle I'm not even sure it's anything to do with dof they just look amazing so worth the extra money and effort
I´m seeing that too - looks like a function of contrast, sharpness and smooth bokeh combined with pleasing colour.
Funnily, even my old Olympus e-330 had some magic to it, just like the Canon 5D and some other cameras. Contrast, sharpness, colours. Some will say that all of that is achievable with software. Good for them, saves a lot of money.
It's the sort of thing that leica owners claim to have but with 'character', microcontrast and smooth bokeh. I just like images to be technically perfect or clinical perhaps that's what I'm liking but I could be mistaken
Can we say simply that, for example a 50mm 1.8 has the same DOF no matter on what sensor size? a cell phone or a medium format. a 50mm 1.8 on a cell phone acts like a 350mm f12 Or : a 50mm 1.8 , on a specific sensor has the same DOF (look) like a 350mm f12. Is that correct?
I am not an expert but I understand that: DOF is a relevant term and not an absolute and simple one, its about detail perception: it Is based on how strictly you want to determine the...dof so as to be able to appear in perception. So the following parameters play here: view size, print resolution, sensor resolution, viewing distance. So the perceived dof is one thing that interprets how optics work. Even Chris made a mistake cropping the 3:2 sensors horizontally instead of vertically. He should have cropped 4:3 sensor horizontal as this crop only keeps angles of view the same, as these are measured horizontally. So the 3:2 sensors were amid magnified as if the lenses became a bit more telephoto. In your question a sensor size change, is a zoom in or out function, and so a magnification or opposite effect on dof. So sensor size and angle of view are the 2 sides of a coin. Yes the optics dof would be the same but what you see (this is your dof perception) is sensor size related
Distance would be different for each in order to get similar composition. And that would change depth of field. Bottom line is the more pixels, the more it can be enlarged. This is the magic of medium format.
My understanding is the pixel count has no effect on DOF I tried it myself, I shoot with a canon 200mm 1.8 on a 47mp full frame camera, so if I want a human head to fill the frame for example, the distance I am shooting the head from has no effect on background blur , if I shoot it from 3 meters , or from 30 meters, then crop it to the same composition , I get the exact same background blur. I am not sure if I understand what are you talking about.
A lens with 50mm focal length and an aperture value of “1.8” (i.e. f/1.8) has an absolute aperture diameter of 27.78mm (= 50mm / 1.8).
That is the size of the light cone for any point in the object space, independent from sensor size. This determines how much out of focus points in the object space are blurred in the image plane.
But the depth of field (DoF) is the blur of out of focus areas in the final output. It is also influenced by the enlargement (sensor size to output size) and the focal length.
In the end the calculations in the DPReview TV video are correct and you can just apply the crop factor to both, focal length and aperture value. This gives the same angle of view and the same absolute aperture diameter for arbitrary sensor sizes.
If a phone has a sensor of 3,2mm x 4,8mm, that would be a crop factor of 7,5.
A 50mm f/1.8 lens used on such a sensor would produce the same image as a 375mm lens with f/13,5 on a full frame sensor.
Eh, no. A 50/1.8 on FF has deeper DoF than on smaller frame if you don’t recompose - the physical size of circle of confusion would be the same so it WILL appear larger on a smaller frame. If you do recompose (ie change subject distance to acquire a same portrait), then 50/1.8 is equivalent to 75/2.7, and f/2.7 is smaller aperture than f/1.8 so the smaller frame has deeper DoF.
Yes, but you aren't shooting the same image as it is getting cropped. The reason smaller sensors have greater DoF is you use a wider lens to get the same view and the wider lens gives you the extra DoF.
Depth of Field and Bokeh fall off is NOT the same thing. A 55mm and a 110mm lens may both have 10cm depth of field, but the 110mm on Medium Format will have more blur than 55mm on APSC
If you want to go that in into the tall grass, then also consider the Circle-of-Confusion differences when comparing sensor with different pixel pitch. As smaller sensors usually have smaller pixels (not always) they will have smaller CoC which increases blurring. "Blur" is 100% subjective because it is caused by the Coc.
The only possible advantage of mf and then ff is that to get the same blur you have smaller apertures as you have bigger sensors. And so it could be the case that with smaller apertures you have better iq. Tech is advancing though
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the main advantages of using a larger format sensor/film that we see more of whatever we're pointing the camera at with the same focal length lens from the same vantage point?
In other words, if I'm sitting on my sofa looking into my back yard through my living room window, the bigger my window, the more I'll see.
And my apologies for taking this on a bit of a tangent -- I realize the topic of the video was DOF.
Thank you for pointing out that in many situations there is also a small difference between FF and APSC in DOF. Many photographers should go for APSC instead of FF and save some money.
In theory you would be totally right but in practice 135 format both film and digital is the sweet spot. 99% of the lenses ever made and being made are for 135 cameras. APS tried to overtake both film and digital, but in 2021 even in digital FF aka 135 format is the clear winner.
if you want the same DoF APSC is not cheaper but actually more expensive because f1.2 APSC lenses tend to have premium build and prestige, while FF f1.8 is considered entry level. The f1.8 FF lenses will not be better optically, but vastly cheaper (XF 56mm 1.2 $1000 vs FF 85f1.8 around $500) And if you go 3rd party you can get very good sigma 85f1.4 $1200 that will smoke the XF for only 20% more.
Well there are different combinations here because if you use a sigma 56mm f1.4 with your APSC then your cost goes down and you don’t sacrifice much in Bokeh compared to its FF equivalent.
The opposite can be true - some wider equivalent aps-c lenses are unavailable or very expensive (as are the bodies), so system costs can actually favor ff depending what you're doing.
The only reason to choose MF is the higher megapixels count. Of course, there is the discourse of the lens resolution, for example an f2.2 MF lens could/should be sharper than a FF lens at 1.8 or a APSC lens at 1.2. But, with lenses like the Canon RF 85mm 1.2, that discourse falls short. In fact, the Canon lens might be sharper at 1.2 than the Fuji 110 at 2. Again, at 100mp, you get more resolution in the end, even if the lens is not sharper, and this is the only major advantage. Another advantage of MF, though, is the possibility to put wide aperture MF lenses like Cine-Xenars or other projection lenses, that gives an incredible shallow dept of field, equivalent to 0.9 or even wider apertures. Not to mention that you can put FF lenses on MF and cover the entire sensor. For example, there is a cult of Canon FD 85mm 1.2 in the Fuji GFX community. That lens covers the entire sensor, giving the field of view of a 68mm 0.95 equivalent FF lens. That is incredible!
Actually for most people the higher pixel count is rarely utilised in MF. Most professionals (including me) use MF as it’s a much better workflow, more reliable, better and more natural colour (as there’s more room to backlight the sensor,)and as it’s made for the task, an easier tool to use day after day. The lenses can have leaf shutters so you get high flash sync and are built like tanks, and the software crucially is more integrated. The pixel count as always is somewhat of a red herring. I’ve done tests with a £400 camera versus a £40,000 MF and there wasn’t that much difference,i.e most people couldn’t see the difference once on a website or in print.
"a red herring. I’ve done tests with a £400 camera versus a £40,000 MF and there wasn’t that much difference" cool, so just put a decently sharp lens on a 24M $500 APS-C camera and you are done?
Well, the resolution is important for prints, where MF images usually end up. Yes, I do agree that the software is more integrated but that is for PhaseOne or Hasselblad. And I still don't like Phocus and Capture One. I would not give LR for C1 ever! Even if LR has major shortcomings like some algorithms for color reproduction, but those can be overcome with the right profile+preset and get better results than C1. Yes, yes, the tethering, I don't use it.
We were testing in an industrial environment with studio flash lightning the Hasselblad HD 30 against the Sigma DP2 Merrill. The conclusion was, either one could be used to take the picture and make the 3x5m print in an satisfactory manner. And there is a huge price and size difference. The camera has to fit the task and the lighting conditions, in poor lighting the Hasselblad beats the Sigma any time, but in studio conditions the Sigma really shines. Choose your format and camera, learn how to use it and stop worrying about better cameras.
Reasons of MF for me: More flexibility in editing. The tonality / gradation between colors is more fluent, but as technology improves, this advantage might fade away, just like there is no more discernible difference between FF and APS-C anymore. I am sure many choose FF, because it sounds more professional, but difference in image quality is no longer a valid reason anymore.
Now fast-forward a decade or two, and here we are, firmly in the 21st century. As much as I have enjoyed the geeky discussions here, the fact is that in the right hands, ALL modern systems are fully capable of truly spectacular results. To me, analog guy that I once was, it’s hard to face it, but the future of photography is more computational, than in ever-larger silicon. Faced with the choice of a larger, beautiful sensor vs modern mirrorless FF, I’ll take the FF, with it’s eye tracking focus, modern dynamic range, multitude of (faster and cheaper) truly excellent lenses, and….did I mention cheaper? To me, in 2022, the only conceivable difference between “modern medium format” (Fuji) and FF is possibly a bit more gradual tonality between dark and light.
That said, from the results of test in the video above, my eye went to the Fuji GFX….
Let’s face it. Half the fun of being a photographer is pixel-peeping, and nerding-out about gear. I freely admit it, have surrendered to it and made peace with it long ago.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, when I first really got into really looking at photographs, I was taken with the work of Edward Curtis, whose early 20th century large-format portraits of Native Americans mesmerized me with their dramatic, shallow depth of field. I became obsessed with achieving a similar result in my pictures; but with a smaller (FF) sensor, how? Well, for the enterprising, it can be done (long, fast lenses, Brenizer method, etc.).
Honestly, for Medium format, I'm still shooting 120 film, so the equivalency is a going to require some nokton, etc very low aperture lenses on the smaller sensors.
Ok question. Are the optical issues with wide f-numbers a result of the wide aperture only or because of the f-number? I’m thinking cats eye, ghosting, loss of contrast, and vignetting etc.
For instance I have a FF 135 1.8 and at 1.8 there is serious cats eye and some loss of contrast but if I stop down to f/2.2 that goes away. So if on MF I had a ~170mm f/2.2 to get the same DOF as 135 f1.8 on FF would that (in theory) solve the cats eye because the f-number is smaller?
It’s money. If you want those problems to go away you have to spend three to five times more for better-engineered lenses using higher-quality optical glass and more flare-resistant coatings. As part of that high price you should also be getting a lens that is assembled with tighter quality control.
Mr. Brightside, The lens I’m referring to is the Sony G Master 135 f/1.8. I bought the most expensive best built lens I could find but it still has Cat’s eye wide open. If there are better long portrait length (say 110-150mm) lenses with large apertures (wider than f/2) out there for FF that don’t have Cat’s eye please let me know. No sarcasm I want to buy them. I hate cats eye
My only experience is with the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC I own which is a magical lens that produces fantastic portraits despite insane optical flaws and the manual focus Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 which I’ve rented and might have what you’re looking for. It’s incredibly well corrected. There is also the legendary Minolta STF 135mm—it’s manual focus too.
No. It has to be an enormous lens to avoid the cats eye and the lens mount may get in the way even then. All lenses I know about do it, not sure about the cine ones. Some are better though.
J A C S is that “no” in response to my original question about the cats eye being a result of the f-number (focal length to aperture ratio) or if there are fast long portrait lenses without cat’s eye?
There are many other advantages of medium format that really have nothing to do with DOF, but with a bigger sensor you technically have the opportunity to have thinner DOF if the lenses support such on aperture.
If you have the patience you can go onto Flickr.com and do a search for 135mm bokeh and you'll find people have posted photos just of bokeh balls shot with various lenses. Cinematographers are also very interested in bokeh and do a lot of lens testing so cinematography.com and https://ascmag.com/articles might be another good place to start your search.
But of course sensor size affects depth of field! Maybe the difference is not noticable between APS-C vs full frame vs medium format. But there's a reason why you cannot take a shallow DOF portrait with a smartphone (without software trickery).
There's a point where irrespective of f, when the aperture becomes extremely small - as with a mobile phone or GoPro - the DOF is deeper. A mobile phone has more DOF at f/4 than even a micro 4/3rds camera b/c of the pinhole like aperture.
I've seen many examples of this, like people whale watching on a cliffside, where the whale is in focus, the ppl are in focus, and the photog is right next to the people, and the mobile phone camera does it at f/5.6.
Yeh maybe the whale is in the hyperfocal distance, but it was way in the background & wasn't lost in the bokeh either.
Phones have such small sensors, that they use ridiculously small focal length lenses. This comes with very large depth of field as in all wide angle lenses.
You cannot make apertures arbitrarily small. To achieve say f/1.2 equivalency on a phone sensor would require physically impossible apertures of say f/0.3, well below around f/0.5 which is smallest physically possible aperture in air. And even if you could make f/0.3, it would be huge even for smartphone lens.
So of course phones use computational photography, and so what. If it works that all that matters.
@J A C S: the goals was to show that not only the sensor size defines the depth of focus, but the sensor size AND the aperture opening. /don`t mix in the quality of background blur (=bokeh), because that is lens dependent and has noting to do with the sensor size/
That aside, the problem with any DOF test is the nature of the bokeh (some looks smoother and more OOF than others) and focus breathing, which utterly messes up the working f-number but is not displayed in the VF (unless you use macro lenses).
So any comparison is tricky, but if you stand back and look at the issue as a whole, similar DoF can be achieved on any format, and it doesn't have a specific 'look' on any format. What matters a lot more for low DOF is the quality of the bokeh.
Thanks for the comparison. Please allow me to disagree at least for the real medium format size and for landscape and architecture photography. The perspective rendering, in terms of field of scope, vertical lines distortion are visible superior in the real Medium Format against APC or Full Frame ones. Regarding your digital Medium Format -for which I agree, it doesn't show a great deal of difference in terms of depth of field for the APC and Full Frame - the arcade street test, could have shown us the performance differences I am talking about, but your comparison screen only show a small portion of the frames. For architecture and landscape photography, the bigger the format the better perspective control you have (remember Ansel Adams). Tilt & Shift lenses for full frames help a lot to bring perspective under control but nevertheless I think the real Medium Format has its advantages.
Exactly, with Med. Fmt. there is less WA field distortion & center compression, for the same FOV b/c of the longer lens. And the longer MF bokeh is going to be nicer as well, at the same f stop.
Now nicer bokeh ='s less DOF in my mind, maybe that's b/c the hyperfocal effect is still there, IDK.
Glad somebody mentioned this. There’s noticeable difference between 50mm on MF vs 28mm on FF and 18 on APS-C and why I preferred wide angle on larger format.
Fujifilm even never mentions its GFX as medium format but Super Full Frame. GFX sensor size is a bit larger than typical Full Frame and not even close to the smallest (!!!) film medium format size. Check how the medium format film looks and GFX...
44x33 MF is around 70% larger than FF, you say this difference make 44x33 MF just "a bit larger than typical full frame."
The smallest film MF is 645, which is around 60% larger than 44x33 MF, but this time, you say the difference make 44x33 "not even close to the smallist(!!!) film medium format size."
I failed to understand your dynamic standard here. It seems you have a special dislike about 44x33 MF.
While the 70% bigger area sounds huge, in reality, if you put one sensor above the other you see the FF is 4mm smaller from each side (L-R) and 3mm or so from top to bottom (each side too).
6x4.5 is 12mm longer from each side (L-R) and 10mm from top to bottom than FF, and that is a massive difference. If you go 6X7 then you do the math.
Those mini-medium format with slowish lenses versus FF and faster primes can't compete, unless you need 100mp.
@forskito: I don't know. Years ago I experimented with many different cameras, including the then highest resolution full frame (Canon 5DSR, 50MP), and a cropped medium format back (Phase One IQx 50MP). When I compared small details between some bird photographs, the medium format was much more crisp, than the Canon. For the sake of transparency I used my Canon 100-400 II and Sigma 500mm on the Canon, and the Schneider Kreuznach 240mm and Zeiss Tele-Apotessar 350mm on the medium format sensor.
I meant to clarify my comment... 44x33 is 70% more area than 36x24 but the aspect ratio is different.
OK, if we crop the MF sensor to the same aspect ratio it's more like 50% more area.
However the larger Fuji 50MP photosites give better DR than the Sony 61MP. There are many examples on the web with identical side-by-side scenes, both with first rate OEM glass, by pro landscape photogs pixel peeping.
Now the 100MP sensor is in another league, with 27 more megapixels for the same 3:2 crop ((44×29.3)÷(36×24)=1.49). That's b/c the Fuji 100s is spreading out that same image over 50% more area , but for the same pixel pitch. In that case despite the same smaller photosites, almost 45% more pixels ((88mp−61mp)÷61mp) are available for the same exact crop.
Either way, 50MP or 100MP med fmt. , the results are better. Maybe arguably better with the 50MP, but clearly better with the 100MP, esp. on A1 prints.
@evaeva0705 No visual difference in 3d pop and object separation between Full Frame and GFX, but different universe between Full Frame and film medium format
Just FYI, effective f-numbers can be quite different from published f-numbers for a couple of reasons well known to macro photographers. This difference affects DOF, as shown in your test.
For instance in the indoor test the bokeh balls (aka Circles of Confusion) above the fireplace are about the same size for MF and FF, indicating equivalent focal lengths and apertures - but the one for APS-C is clearly smaller. And in fact you point out that DOF looks about the same for the former two - but different for the latter.
Was just about to point this out. If dpreview really wanted to put this to bed, they would use t-stops (measured rather than theoretical apertures). Instead Chris tried to explain away the differences in a way that was unconvincing. The Apsc lens obviously has a smaller physical aperture which is why that image looks markedly different.
When it comes to bokeh ball sizes, F stop is the right one to compare as they describe the geometry of the optical system. T stops are only for describing transmission of the lens. F.e. you can reduce T stop of the lens by attaching ND filter without affecting F stop.
Practically speaking, MF lenses tend to be slower wide open than 35mm format lenses, so there's a tradeoff if attaining super-thin DOF is your goal. So yes, wide open (but different apertures), MF lenses end up with similar DOF as 35mm, but also sharper (fast, sharp, cheap: pick two). OTOH, isn't Sunny 16 is the same for all formats?
However for the same FOV, same f, a larger format lens & camera will provide lesser DOF, @ slightly more distance b/c of the extra telephoto reach. And w/ that extra telephoto reach a larger format avoids the same degree of WA curvature toward the edges, or subject compression at the center (faces getting pinched, noses bigger).
OTOH larger format may need more room to work for the same FOV & matched focal length, so the answer is to carry a zoom lens. OTOH if using focus-stacking in larger formats, you need more frames due to the shallower DOF (FWIW Fuji GFX MF cameras provide automatic focus-stacking as do Olympus OMD's).
And if it's supers-shallow DOF you need on a Medium Format mirrorless camera, then adapt any 2+stop faster 35mm lens to it w/ an expander (Metabones or Laowa for Fuji GFX as an example).
That'll provide the shallower DOF you want while losing a stop of light, but the improved ISO performance of the med. fmt. sensor can handle the darker image just fine.
Guys, it is easier: DoF depends on the lens diameter. The confusion around DoF is a consequence of lens cameras being described in terms of FL and f/ratio. Optical instruments from binoculars up to the Webb telescope are specified in terms of lens diameter. Btw, the lens cost depends essentially on its diameter - for equal DoF, you will spend the same money on the lens, regardless of the sensor size.
@Luis V. That's a very good input. The cost of a lens is also highly dependent on the number manufactured. For example good quality Full Frame 50mm f/1.4 lenses can be purchased for bargain prices. For me, in terms of technical quality, there are three advantages of larger sensors e.g. full frame and, even more so, medium format: 1) Lower magnification is required to view the image. This results in higher sharpness compared to smaller formats, unless the smaller format uses higher resolution lenses. 2) The larger sensor can accommodate more pixels resulting (with the appropriate lenses) in higher resolution. 3) Perhaps most importantly for me, it's just easier to make good technical quality images with a higher resolution system, particularly as I often significantly crop my images in PP. Finding the optimum crop is a process I have always enjoyed and I don't have the skill to always get optimum crop when I hand hold my camera - particularly for moving subjects.
H&Y has announced a new system of magnetic filters and accessories called Swift, designed to make switching filters in the field faster and easier than traditional filter systems. We tested two magnetic kits aimed at still photographers and filmmakers
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
RED alleges Nikon is infringing upon multiple of its patents in its Z series mirrorless cameras, specifically calling out the N-RAW capture mode of the Z9 with firmware version 2.0. Nikon tells DPReview it is unable to comment on the matter
Megadap's original ETZ11 AF adapter lets photographers adapt Sony E-mount lenses to their Nikon Z mirrorless cameras. However, the product had some performance issues. Megadap is back with a brand-new adapter that promises to deliver improved compatibility and autofocus thanks to new hardware and software.
After ceasing production of its popular a6400 APS-C mirrorless camera system in December 2021, due to supply chain constraints, Sony Japan has confirmed it will once again start production and taking orders from retailers and customers.
Mars is dusty. Despite its best efforts, the InSight Mars lander, which arrived on Mars in late 2018, is so covered in dust that its solar panels are operating at low levels, and the lander must prepare for its' retirement.' But, before going into a low-power mode, the lander captured one final selfie.
Reto has announced a new half-frame 35mm camera, the Kodak-branded Ektar H35. The lightweight, affordable camera allows you to capture 72 images using a single 36-shot roll of 35mm film.
Artificial intelligence is improving fast. Less than a month after OpenAI released its impressive DALL-E 2 text-to-image generator, Google has bested it with Imagen.
Firmware v1.01 for the Sony a7 IV promised an improvement in Eye AF performance but we're still finding that wide-aperture shots are fractionally front-focused.
H&Y has announced a new system of magnetic filters and accessories called Swift, designed to make switching filters in the field faster and easier than traditional filter systems. We tested two magnetic kits aimed at still photographers and filmmakers
The specification sheet, leaked by Photo Rumors, suggests we'll see Sony's next-generation a7R camera feature a 61MP sensor powered by its BIONZ XR image processor.
Canon's EOS R10 and R7 share a lot of their spec, including an impressive AF system, but the closer you look, the more differences emerge. We look at how the two models compare.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
Comments