full frame vs medium format
Why is medium format "better" then full frame wrt ti "image quality"? okay follow me here.. a medium format sensor is a roughly 2.1 times the area of a full frame sensor. If I take a 12M D3 sensor and the 40M pentax 645 sensor..the D3 pixels are are still roughly 50% bigger then the pentax pixels. The CW here is that the bigger the pixels the better the iso, the dynaic range, etc.
I left "better" and "image quality" in quotes because I don't really know what they mean in this discussion..simply that many folks seem to think so.
I knwo the pentax sensor does not have AA filter.. so perhaps the image maybe sharper becasue of that. I know that that if print large then of course the resolution will be better with more pixels.
Is the medium format "better" because there is simply a better image processor behind the pixels? what gives?
I left "better" and "image quality" in quotes because I don't really know what they mean in this discussion..simply that many folks seem to think so.
I knwo the pentax sensor does not have AA filter.. so perhaps the image maybe sharper becasue of that. I know that that if print large then of course the resolution will be better with more pixels.
Is the medium format "better" because there is simply a better image processor behind the pixels? what gives?
D700, D600
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
0
Comments
Ummm . . . no . .
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Take a read of this review - 645D Vs Phase One P40+ back on a Phase One body. A Canon 1DMKIII is in there briefly and quickly discarded as not even being close to the ball-park.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml
Combining the larger sensor size, more/better resolution, lenses and relationship to the focal plane ...... MF gear is generally streets ahead when it comes to dynamic range, control of dof, sharpness and clarity ........ it really is like comparing the proverbial Apples V Oranges or the 14 Mp compact agaist a D3.
www.warped-photography.com
FF sensor is 36mmx24mm = 864MM² and the 645D sensor is 44mmx33mm = 1432MM²
That's only ~%65 larger.
MF cameras do have poor light performance relative to full frame like you said. I've looked at samples from several cameras at ISO 1600 and they looked bad at a pixel level compared to FF @ 1600. The general consensus for the 645D is that it does fairly well up to ISO1600. I've checked samples and I agree with that. FF cameras, however, can pull the same noise at ISO3200 and ISO6400 depending on the camera. Really it's just because it's bigger with more small pixels sacrificing low light performance, like you said. lol. The Leica S2 has terrible low light noise performance, but at ISO 100/200 it's like heaven-on-earth perfection, especially with those lenses they made for it. If I suddenly had an S2 due to winning the lottery, I wouldn't even bother using it for low light hand held photography unless I had a lens F1.4 or wider (which they don't make)
It is a number of different technologies and techniques that converge to produce the smooth tones, low noise and higher levels of detail that hallmark medium format digital cameras and backs.
Yes, removing the AA filter will allow higher levels of detail but it will induce visible moiré in specific circumstances and need subsequent image post processing to negate moiré when it happens. In social and architectural imagery this can be a real problem, but for many applications it is not a problem.
Lenses are another area where medium format tends to shine. A medium format lens adapted to a smaller digital format tends not to look as crisp as it does on the native medium format cameras because of the relatively low photosite density. Conversely, the very best lenses do allow excellent sub-pixel image rendering which translates directly into more image detail. In effect, medium format does not tend to have to enlarge the fully formed image as much as smaller formats do.
That same lower photosite density also allows lower random sensor noise since each photosite is a larger photo "bucket". Unfortunately most medium format sensors, amplifiers, image pipelines and image processors are not yet tuned to high-ISO acquisition and this is the current "Achilles heel" for the technology. I do expect this to change over the next 5 or so years (and some of that change has begun already).
Likewise medium format camera body technology does not currently support the best AF modules and both AF speed and AF accuracy can be lacking as compared to digital 135 format camera bodies of similar pricing, especially AF speed.
For now, image stitching and image stacking techniques and software allow a much more affordable solution to the common photographer for static subjects and todays dSLRs are otherwise extremely capable for the mundane tasks of typical subjects like weddings, social events, sports, wildlife, vacations, etc., etc. ...
After all, interesting subject matter with great composition and technique, great lighting, great lenses and careful processing, all still contribute more to image quality than any body.
Besides, large format film cameras and some nice lenses that still do an excellent job and currently trump medium format digital cameras for ultimate image quality. Arizona Highways "still" prefers 4" x 5" transparencies for their publication. (Yep, I just checked.)
http://www.arizonahighways.com/photography/submissions.asp
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Careful there, at the end of that article they concluded that, "... I find that my 1Ds MkIII images, captured with the Canon 24~105mm f/4 L lens do emerge from post-capture processing into print with fine resolution and edge sharpness where it matters ..." and "... Well, we had a hiccup on location with the Canon, whose lesson of experience is simple: “Be really, really careful ...”.
I.e. they could have done better with the Canon and usually do better with that camera.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That was usually followed by "So what, a macro of an eye - most cameras can take a good close up of an eye"
That's when I'd zoom out to show them the eye was part of a full body length portrait shot including lots of background.
The opportunites that open up in cropping and composition are worth the change and rarely talked about but are worth consideration too. In the one shot your cropping and re-comopostion options really open up when you've got that much info and clarity to play with.
As for stitching and layering ...etc - I'd much rather throw a 30mm or wider lens on a MF and spend more time outdoors getting amazing shots than worrying about pano heads, lining up shots and sitting in front of the PC creating what could be done with one press of the button .... but maybe that's just me
If you still want to stitch - just think what you could do with multiple 40 - 50 Mb raw files!
It's so hard to talk to this subject - it really is Apples V Oranges and too many people get passionate about defending their current equipment of choice (including me!!).
If MF really is of interest - you owe it to yourself to go loan, borrow, hire one and try it out, no forum chat will do the end result justice and it's something you really need to see and experience for yourself.
www.warped-photography.com
do you have the eye shot around? heh..i dom't know if i have ever seen full res MF image
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Search for samples online! It's really valuable knowledge IMO for any photographer, even just for the sake of knowing what's really out there.
645D samples are really boring. There are some really good Leica S2 samples out there that will either make you:
-Drop your jaw
-Drop a load in your pants
-Both
The landscapes and street scenes are what impressed me the most for MF stuff.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/warped-photography/4925730713/sizes/l/in/photostream/
It's not "the" eye I was talking about earlier, but is a 100% crop from a larger, full length pic.
Pretty sure it's a crop from the one below and this pic is cropped from the original to remove some distracting background stuff. The original includes the legs for the chair and is around another 1/3rd larger overall.
Finding full res examples on the net isn't as easy as you'd first think. With the 645D a hi-res jpg is 20 to 30 Mb per image, a .dng or .pef raw file around the 40 to 40 Mb range and an 8bit tif file is over the 100 Mb mark. Try hosting that on a regular smugmug account!
If a lotto win comes my way a Leica S2 would be more than welcome to join the 645D in the bag.
I scrimped, saved and loaned a little to afford the 645D but couldn't stretch things far enough to go with Leica.
I had a H4D-40 for a while and I'd take the Pentax over the Blad any day.
I have "issues" with Capture One so steered clear of Phase One or Mamiya.
Couldn't find anyone around to talk to about Aptus or other less well know brands and they're out of my budget anyway.
AUD$14K is a LOT of money and I spent a lot of time with a D3x and a a few variants of the 1D and 5D before handing over that kind of money I and don't regret the 645D for a second. Sure it doesn't do everything a FF DSLR can do when it comes to lo-light/ISO performance and fps for fast shooting, but what the MF gear does do well, it does it VERY well, and in my opinion is simply miles ahead of anything on offer in the 35mm DSLR range.
www.warped-photography.com
That's a cop-out if i ever heard one
Some of these are crops but most are available as original:
http://dpreview.com/news/1012/10120308pentax645d.asp
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DA7.HTM
(click O for full size) http://www.flickr.com/photos/27863106@N07/4982733704/sizes/s/in/set-72157624938971922/ - honestly it looks like crap at ISO1600 looking twice here
(click O for full size) http://www.flickr.com/photos/13377977@N04/4763388515/sizes/s/
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/leica-s2-beta-preview-samples/slideshow
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/01/21/review_camera_leica_s2_apo_macro_summarit_s_120mm/page3.html
http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/leica_s2_photos/
Took me 6 minutes to find them. I didn't want to do it yesterday
Didn't say it was impossible, just not as easy
In comparison - how hard is to find example images of whatever the newest Nikon or Canon release is .00002 of a second after it's been released to the market
www.warped-photography.com
Better quality is obtained by achieving the highest mega-pixel for details but without sacrificing the pixel quality. By currently technology, highest pixel quality can be obtained by using pixels with a size around or bigger than 6 micron. So both the MF and D3 can attain the highest pixel quality. What left is who can get more details with such a pixel quality. an MF has more than 40MP pixels for details it thus wins. However, it seems that by current technology, CMOS is better than CCD in terms of ISO performance.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
You are absolutely correct. I shoot with MF and FF. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. My DM56 is quite better in some ways than my D3, but that doesn't make it better all the time. When I need faster shutter speeds or a higher ISO the Mamiya stays in the case. When I am shooting in water it doesn't even get brought with me.
The camera body is just a tool, using the wrong tool for the job won't make it better just because it cost you more.
I also agree. You really have to experience the difference first hand to appreciate it. Don't get me wrong, I love my D3 and 95% of the time if you see me out and about, I have a pair of them hanging from my shoulders, but if I could shoot only in the studio or landscapes under the right conditions, I wouldn't own a dslr.
Since I don't live in a perfect world where I can make all the decisions, I use the tools necessary to get the shots I want.
Website
No argument about that, I guess. Not targeting you Icebear, but as an academic notion, I think zooming in and in looking for pixels is some kind of eccentric obsession, it doesn't seem to me to have much to do with what is ordinarily meant by photography. It seems to me to be a very blinkered fixation on just one technical aspect of a device. When the pixels have at last been seen, after the Raiders of the Lost Ark odyssey, where is the image?
That kind of tech is perhaps appropriate for advertising along roads and in malls etc, which unfortunately as an application of MF doesn't have quite the same kind of aura that is typically dodged in around this gear. Billboards are just too removed from the salon!
So, I would suggest that while large and medium format might well have, and still have, unique advantages, those advantages are rather more practical and pragmatic, and narrower in scope, than the hype would suggest, and perhaps not appropriate, let alone preferable, in the photography that is generally done very successfully with other formats.
As a sideshow alley exhibit those reduction-to-pixel adventures with data files from MF are certainly a thrill, but like the sheep with two heads, not something that you would necessarily want to bring home.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Crop: how much is too much for average purposes? I have cropped up to 60% (= thrown away 60%) with 40D and got superb results printed at 18"x at in-front-of-your-nose viewing, no limit yet in sight.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
$25K for lenses ..... whoa, where are you shopping????
The Petax 645D is fully backwards compatible with the lenses made for the old 645, 645II and 645N film cameras. With an adapter you can use lenses from the 67, 67II series as well. You can pick up pro level glass for a few hundred per lens.
Hasselblad and Mamiya are the same and older lenses and/or using adapters so old gear will fit the newer bodies and are reasonably cheap compared to stuff like Canon L glass.
Yes there are hugely expensive MF lenses that'll kill a bank account (the new Pentax 25mm is USD$5K), but there's also a lot of cheap stuff out there. If you're prepared to go with 2nd hand gear and shop around, a couple of primes and a zoom or two can be had for under $5K.
My next lens will be a 30mm wide angle (equivalent fov to a 17mm on a 35mm FF) I'm picking up for 250 Euro.
When looking at going FF and switching from Pentax to a D3 system I wasn't going to get much change, if any, from $10K for a D3s and a few good lenses plus other accessories like spare batteries and other odds and sods - so AUD$14K for the 645D (2.8/55mm prime included) wasn't that bad in the end for me.
That said, I'm a part-timer and get to pick and choose what I shoot, so I'm never caught out needing better hi-ISO performance or super fast lenses.
As for cropping - see my example above and the 100% crop of the eyes.
Another example - the original for this is a portrait oriented pic, this would be around a 33% crop straight across the middle of the original and looks great as an 18x24 inch print.
www.warped-photography.com
link?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The reason I mention all of this is because I do have a couple of Pentax 500mm, f4.5 lenses that supposedly provided enough coverage for a 6x7 medium format body. I am hoping someday to adapt these lenses to a medium format body and the Pentax 645D seems a likely candidate.
For most people, medium format digital is still a dream more than a reality. Lots of reasons why this is true, but it's true none the less.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Posting stuff from my Flickr account always goes screwy for me .... does this work?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/warped-photography/4925730713/sizes/l/in/photostream/
That's a 100% crop from the image posted earlier in this thread and even that image was cropped from the original (original included the legs to the chair/lounge).
@ Ziggy - I'm reasonably sure that none of the lenses with a M42 and K mount for the 35mm gear will work on a 645, 645D or 67 series as the distance to the focal plane is different and the mount is VERY different ..... I've seen adapters to use 645 and 67 mount lenses on 35mm bodies but never the other way around. Happy to be proven wrong but I'm 99.9% certain none of your older Pentax gear will work properly on a 645D :cry
www.warped-photography.com
The Pentax 500mm, f4.5 and Pentax 1000mm, f8 refractor lenses were unique in that they needed adapters to work with the host camera. My 2 copies have the M42 adapter, which means that I can use them with my Canon EOS bodies via another simple adapter (which is cool enough), but supposedly the lens could also be adapted to the Pentax 6x7 with another adapter.
There is a discussion in this thread:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/71319-s-m-c-takumar-1000mm-f-8-a.html
... and supposedly here is an image of the 6x7 adapter in this post:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/748240-post155.html
The lens has ample adjustment for infinity focus via 3 set screws and people have used the Pentax 500mm, f4.5 on various bodies including Nikon via custom DIY adapters. The rear element is way up in the lens body so yes, I think that a Pentax 645D adapter is doable.
The lens would be used manual focus and preset, but they are great image quality. (My copies sadly have some internal grunge and they are soft. I have not yet had them serviced but it looks like nothing permanent.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
DAMM YOU!! More lens options to keep an eye out for and make dents in my savings
www.warped-photography.com
yeah, saw it thanks!
tell me, are all 100%s equal, can you directly compare them, or does the significance of a 100% depend on original pixel dimensions?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
We are dependent on the system. Which output medium, post-processing tools, lab, etc. Plus your individual style and what you want to express. All cameras, also MF, give a poor imitation of the dynamic rage of the human eye when our concern is simply to repeat this experience.
Imagine a 1GB sensor resolving 10 separate colors. Huge amount of detail. How would you process it or view it today? Digital cameras are in still in their infancy.
Sure, medium format delivers more data according the old paradigm. In some circumstances you can even see the difference.
Most people prefer DSLR because it is multi-purpose and delivers excellent outputs 99% of the time. Most of this effect is due to the system surrounding and not the core technology. High volume electronics create an eco-system that is mostly perfect but not always. So I chose to go with Canon because when the 70D or 5Dmk3 comes out I think Aperture will support it a long time before they support the Pentax equivalent, however much fans promote the value-for-money and quality aspects of the Pentax XYZ. The eco-system is all.
MF is tiny volume electronics with a minute eco-system, creating superior results on occasions when you have enough skill and support resources. I would love to be rich and successful enough to play around with MF. I compare it with audiophile music equipment - it is better but only after you rebuilt your living room, and even then very few real people will ever hear the difference.
Meantime the real difference in photography for most of us comes from the photographer's eye, as for the past 150 years.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I have to stir the pot also.
Out of the nay sayers, how many of you have actually used a digital medium format? I get why some people feel the need to defend the dslr, but if you have little to no first hand knowledge, why the argument?
This I totally agree with. The best camera in the wrong hands will not create the best images.
Website