Do different format sizes produce different images?

[markbarendt]

For the third time, depth-of-field is uniquely determined by magnification and aperture. Focal length and format have nothing to do with it.

What specific statement of mine are you objecting to?

I know aperture and magnification (and hence format size) determine depth of field and am not sure why you think I'm disgreeing with you?

Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.

If you take a picture of a penny at 1:1 the penny's image on the film will be the same size as the penny in real life. The film behind the lens could be micro-film or a 12"x20" sheet, wouldn't make a darn bit of difference.

What the format size determines is the angle of view within the limits of the image circle of the lens.

 

[tomfrh]

Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.

Not the magnification projected onto the film. The magnification of the final 8x10 image, which is what depth of field is based upon.

What the format size determines is the angle of view within the limits of the image circle of the lens.

Of course.

And a bigger format covers a larger piece of film, which needs to be enlarged less, and thus has different depth of field to a smaller format which needs to be magnified more.

 

[markbarendt]

One thing that is typically different between large format and small is the type of lenses used.

Large format lenses are generally 'normal' in design meaning that the measured focal length and the distance between the film and the middle of the lens are the same.

On a 35mm SLR a 35mm lens is typically a retro focus lens, meaning the measured focal length is behind (actually outside) the lens. Similarly a 200 mm lens on 35mm camera is a Telephoto design where the measured distance is in front of the lens.

Focus on 'normal' lenses in this sense is done by moving the lens forward or back. On small format lenses the magic is done by moving elements inside.

What I'm saying is that the glass does different things depending on the general class.

 

[markbarendt]

Not the magnification projected onto the film. The magnification of the final 8x10 image, which is what depth of field is based upon.

You are mixing magnification types, camera and enlarger magnification are not equals.

 

[wiltw]

Focus on 'normal' lenses in this sense is done by moving the lens forward or back. On small format lenses the magic is done by moving elements inside.

What I'm saying is that the glass does different things depending on the general class.

That statement in blue is NOT universally true of small format lenses.
I have a macro lens which moves the optics -- as a UNIT -- away from the focal plane to focus closer and get macro magnifications to 1:2...then it adds a specific included extension tube to get that lens to 1:1 magnification. It is a MANUAL FOCUS small format lens.
The modern autofocus lens DOES use moving elements to change FL of the lens, to minimize the amount of forward movement that the AF motor has to move the lens, and it is all 'internal focus' and not the entire optical unit moved as a unit like my manual focus macro is. The Canon EF 100mm macro changes to 75mm FL when focused closest for macro photos.

 

[tomfrh]

You are mixing magnification types, camera and enlarger magnification are not equals.

It doesn't matter. The point which you guys are ignoring is that large format image need to be magnified less than a smaller format, and thus produces a different depth of field for a given aperture and focal length than a smaller format.

All of which is beside the point as my original question concerns EQUIVALENT depth of field, i.e. different aperture settings on different formats.

 

[tomfrh]

One thing that is typically different between large format and small is the type of lenses used.

Large format lenses are generally 'normal' in design meaning that the measured focal length and the distance between the film and the middle of the lens are the same.

What about the pentax 105 f/2.4 which often comes up as example of larger format "look". What sort of design is it?

 

[MattKing]

I have a feeling that some of this perception of difference actually flows from the differences in our appreciation of cameras.
I think that it is entirely subjective.
We tend to like the results better from cameras we like better, and those who use a variety of formats tend to like the larger ones better.
I don't believe that you can separate the perception from the qualities of the film.

 

[tomfrh]

I think that it is entirely subjective.
We tend to like the results better from cameras we like better, and those who use a variety of formats tend to like the larger ones better.

Yes the subjectivity makes it all a bit murky.

Regarding the film qualities, I see the same discussion in d forums, where grain/tonality isn't so relevant.

 

[MattKing]

Yes the subjectivity makes it all a bit murky.

Actually, I think it makes it totally clear.
As there are no objective measures for the difference (once you factor out the factors you have mentioned) you can be confident that the difference does arise from the expectations and subjective preferences of the user. If people like using something, they tend to achieve results with it that they prefer.

 

[tomfrh]

you can be confident that the difference does arise from the expectations and subjective preferences of the user

I'm not 100% confident it's all that, but I wouldn't be at especially surprised if it was. Expectancy effects and biases certainly play a big role in how people judge things, particularly stuff like cameras and lenses. I know it affects my judgment.

 

[Fixcinater]

The P67 105/2.4 is an Ultron style design, from what I can find online.

 

[tomfrh]

The P67 105/2.4 is an Ultron style design, from what I can find online.

What about the 35mm 105mm takumar?

 

[AgX]

Tom, the format size has nothing to do with magnification.

Of course it has, if one considers format-filling. A head portrait in LF is already in the macro range, the same portrait in 35mm not.

 

[Steve Smith]

Assume equivalent focal length and aperture.

Better to assume same field of view so the composition is the same.


Steve.

 

[tomfrh]

Better to assume same field of view so the composition is the same.

I am assuming that too.

 

[removed account4]

miroslav tichy's camera and lens combination rivals any expensive german 35mm or LF lens combination in sharpness and resolution, hands down.

 

[markbarendt]

Of course it has, if one considers format-filling. A head portrait in LF is already in the macro range, the same portrait in 35mm not.

Actually in the context of this thread where the angle of view is assumed to be the same that thought doesn't work.

Camera makers tend to call focussing on close subjects macro or micro to differentiate certain lenses, it's just marketing hoopla, not a fixed technical term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

 

[markbarendt]

It doesn't matter. The point which you guys are ignoring is that large format image need to be magnified less than a smaller format, and thus produces a different depth of field for a given aperture and focal length than a smaller format.

All of which is beside the point as my original question concerns EQUIVALENT depth of field, i.e. different aperture settings on different formats.

Have you considered the fact that with large format you have to change lenses to maintain the same angle of view?

To maintain a given angle of view, for a given film format in large format, the lens has to maintain the same distance to the film plane.

The act of focusing a large format camera changes the distance to the film plane and in doing so changes the angle of view. Changing the angle of view changes what is seen by the lens. Yes, a given subject in the scene may be kept at the same size on the film by also changing the subject to camera distance but the very act of focussing changes how everything else in the composition is recorded.

 

[AgX]

So much things are thrown together in this thread...

 

[Bill Burk]

On a lark, I've demonstrated how photographs from a Minox negative compare to photographs from 4x5. It's here...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Mortensen said the difference is that between definition and detail. The larger formats have greater detail.
Mortensen considered detail you get from larger formats to be decadent art while definition is classic.
Ansel Adams would say that detail is what defines photography.

I was about to compare the similarity expected in depth of field and look at different film sizes where the aperture would be different say f/8 on a 35mm lens on 35mm camera compared to 135mm lens on 4x5 camera at f/11. I processed the negatives but didn't print them yet. I could read the numbers on the house across the street with the 4x5 and that seemed to be the only difference.

 

[removed account4]

It doesn't matter. The point which you guys are ignoring is that large format image need to be magnified less than a smaller format, and thus produces a different depth of field for a given aperture and focal length than a smaller format.

All of which is beside the point as my original question concerns EQUIVALENT depth of field, i.e. different aperture settings on different formats.

LOL
i pretty much said that on page 1 of this thread.

if you enlarge a 35mm negative to 8x10 and you enlarge a MF or LF negative the same amount
and you use the same type of lens, the images will be very much the same.

 

[Bill Burk]

There was a thread about how different apertures are needed (same measured opening?) for different formats to achieve the same look. I think it's true so was going to demonstrate a pair of the same picture from different fomats. I still think it would be a useful experiment.

 

[tomfrh]

There was a thread about how different apertures are needed (same measured opening?) for different formats to achieve the same look

Yes, that's why I listed equivalent (ie different) apertures. 6x7 90mm f16 vs 35mm 45mm f8. That makes them horizontally equivalent.

LOL
i pretty much said that on page 1 of this thread.

yes it's going round in circles.

Have you considered the fact that with large format you have to change lenses to maintain the same angle of view?

Seriously?

Of course I've considered that. Go back and first the first post.

 

[David T T]

How's about this...

A) large format cameras achieve more definition, with lesser magnification (in the final print) overwhelming lower MTF in comparison with 135 lenses

B) different individual lenses have different "looks" as a result of different OOF rendition, different correction for barrel distortion/chromatic abberation/etc., different optical arrangements and focusing mechanisms

???