Medium format vs typical canon/nikon cameras

rickp · May 6, 2011

What's the big advantage to using a medium format type camera over lets' say a canon 5D2 with 20 megapixel for landscape photos?
I've read that some of these cameras can be 40, 50 even 60 megapixel, so is it the ability to blow up that image or do they really capture that much more detail?

Sam · May 6, 2011

rickp wrote: »

What's the big advantage to using a medium format type camera over lets' say a canon 5D2 with 20 megapixel for landscape photos?
I've read that some of these cameras can be 40, 50 even 60 megapixel, so is it the ability to blow up that image or do they really capture that much more detail?

The answer is yes.

Sam

rickp · May 6, 2011

Thank you sir!

ThatCanonGuy · May 6, 2011

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=188750

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=36421633&q=leica+s2+canon+1ds&qf=m

JimKarczewski · May 7, 2011

I know Peter Lik uses a P65+ back on a 645AF and I can understand why, when he's cropping to pano format which is 1:3 he's loosing about 1/2 of what the sensor takes. Do that on a 5DII and you'll end up with a 10MP image vs a 30MP image. I guess the only real way (which I intend to do next) to determine what's so different is to try one. I'm going to head to Calumet one day and take my 5DII and my 645AF lenses and see how they do on a 20MP starter back from PhaseOne (the one that you can get in the kit for $12K or so) to see where the differences are in studio and maybe if they let me, outside...

Warped · May 9, 2011

Bigger sensor, better resolution, more detail, better/larger Dynamic range, better control of DOF ..... MF does have it's downfalls, as does pretty much every camera, but when it comes to things like landscapes or studio work it's all win/win when you go bigger.

Digital MF gear, like any other electronic piece of kit, keeps evolving and improving and some of the old sterotypes of what digital MF gear can't do no longer applies. If you're interested in seeing what the larger format is capable of, hire something like a Pentax 645D (got one, LOVE IT!!), Hasselblad H4D-40 or a Mamiya/Phase One kit and have a play - as I reckon the results need to be seen and analysed first hand to really appreciate what that huge sensor is capable of capturing.

As mentioned, I've got a 645D, what I shoot and I think the MF gear does really well at:
- Portaiture, indoors, on-location, anywhere, especially studio work and natural light work.
- Landscape and nature.

Where I struggle:
- Nature with fast moving objects/animals
- Photojournalism/street spur of the moment stuff

I don't shoot sports but reckon I'd struggle unless I had a dedicated area to set-up and shoot action as it ocurred in easy to predict spots.
Low light is easier with something like a D3s, but not impossible with MF gear and it'll do a good job if you plan ahead and know your limitations and work to them.

michswiss · May 9, 2011

I've been sorely temped to move to MF for a while. I've primarily considered film due to the cost of entry into digital MF equipment. But you know, I like my current digital workflow and the MF film cameras I've been considering are manual focus. Not so good with my ageing eyes, even if I use a zone-focussing technique.

The 645D might sway me. I had a chance to shoot a couple of frames with one last week with the 55/2.8. It felt completely natural and I really liked the results. It's hard to quantify, but from what I've seen and am hoping for is just that added kicker of depth, clarity and dynamic range in the final images with the potential for larger prints and creative cropping. That said, and purely my naive and subjective opinion, film trumps digital in any given format in terms of ultimate quality even in a hybrid workflow.

Warped · May 9, 2011

michswiss wrote: »

I've been sorely temped to move to MF for a while. I've primarily considered film due to the cost of entry into digital MF equipment. But you know, I like my current digital workflow and the MF film cameras I've been considering are manual focus. Not so good with my ageing eyes, even if I use a zone-focussing technique.

The 645D might sway me. I had a chance to shoot a couple of frames with one last week with the 55/2.8. It felt completely natural and I really liked the results. It's hard to quantify, but from what I've seen and am hoping for is just that added kicker of depth, clarity and dynamic range in the final images with the potential for larger prints and creative cropping. That said, and purely my naive and subjective opinion, film trumps digital in any given format in terms of ultimate quality even in a hybrid workflow.

I shoot with both the 645 film camera and the 645D, my film shooting used to be a completely "wet" process, but is now hybrid a I move more towards being a 100% digital shooter.

I've shot with Mamiya and Hasselblad film gear and the Hasselblad H4D digital series and found the 645D to be much more intuitive to use, if feels and works just like a modern DSLR. The 645D will easily take 67 lenses as well as all the old 645 lenses so you can easily shoot with and share lenses from the film gear and digital kit if you're a Pentax shooter.

6 months in to owning the 645D and I've found it slowing me down and taking a bit more time on composition (part frame rate and part memory space) and settings and getting a lot more "keepers". LOVE the control of DOF, the extra DR and colour rendition the large snsor produces and there are some amazing, yet cheap lenses getting around to experiment with.

Medium format vs typical canon/nikon cameras

Comments