Do different format sizes produce different images?

[Sirius Glass]

So that you can know it is not necessary to carry separate cameras to get the shot you want. All you have to do is bring yourself to the spot. Then bring the camera and lens that you want... Given the amount of resolution and detail you want. In many cases people have found 35mm is sufficient.

Well stated. Bring the right tools to the job.

 

[tomfrh]

All you have to do is bring yourself to the spot. Then bring the camera and lens that you want... Given the amount of resolution and detail you want. In many cases people have found 35mm is sufficient.

I agree, well said. That's ultimately what I wanted to know when I first asked the question!

 

[Neil Poulsen]

. . . Aside from the better sharpness/resolution/smoother-tones with the medium format, what differences are there? . . .

One difference as the size of film is increased is depth of field and its effects. For example, maintaining sharp focus throughout a scene, one needs to use smaller apertures, which lengthens exposure. Movement can become more visible, perhaps blurring moving objects. This can effect the mood of a photograph.

Or vice versa, bokah becomes more pronounced if one is trying to stop action as they might with 35mm. (That is, to maintain the same shutter speed in MF compared to 35mm, may require larger apertures.

 

[Bill Burk]

One difference as the size of film is increased is depth of field and its effects. For example, maintaining sharp focus throughout a scene, one needs to use smaller apertures, which lengthens exposure. Movement can become more visible, perhaps blurring moving objects. This can effect the mood of a photograph.

Or vice versa, bokah becomes more pronounced if one is trying to stop action as they might with 35mm. (That is, to maintain the same shutter speed in MF compared to 35mm, may require larger apertures.

I think it balances out if you change other factors to maintain the quality. For example you can use a superfast grainy film in 4x5 and a fine grain film in 35mm and use the same shutter speed even though 4x5 needed a smaller f/stop choice to get the same depth of field.

 

[tomfrh]

I think it balances out if you change other factors to maintain the quality.

Similar thing with my other cameras. To get same depth of field with a bigger sensor you need to stop down more, meaning you need faster ISO to maintain shutter speed, which counteracts the inherent noise/quality advantage of bigger sensor.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Similar thing with my other cameras. To get same depth of field with a bigger sensor you need to stop down more, meaning you need faster ISO to maintain shutter speed, which counteracts the inherent noise/quality advantage of bigger sensor.

Silly me, I thought we were talking about real cameras that use film not some electro-mechanical silicon based sensor used by digisnappers.

 

[tomfrh]

Silly me, I thought we were talking about real cameras that use film

we are! I just couldn't help notice it's the same phenomena.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Similar thing with my other cameras. To get same depth of field with a bigger sensor you need to stop down more, meaning you need faster ISO to maintain shutter speed, which counteracts the inherent noise/quality advantage of bigger sensor.

Silly me, I thought we were talking about real cameras that use film not some electro-mechanical silicon based sensor used by digisnappers.

we are! I just couldn't help notice it's the same phenomena.

In that case the proper optical term is "focal plane".

 

[wiltw]

Similar thing with my other cameras. To get same depth of field with a bigger sensor you need to stop down more, meaning you need faster ISO to maintain shutter speed, which counteracts the inherent noise/quality advantage of bigger sensor.

And if you are shooting products on sets, or other still life, the reduction in shutter speed (and use of same ISO for both) to maintain exposure to offset the need for smaller aperture (to preserve DOF same in both) is immaterial due to lack of subject motion... so we're back to grain size and number of grains/color clouds allocated on film to a given amount of subject area and the resultant image benefits, as the only apparent differences.

 

[Luckless]

It really falls down to context: If you are stopping down to compensate for depth of field differences with the same framing on a larger sensor area (Yes, film meets the definition of a sensor) then you can also compensate to maintain exposure in other ways than just bumping the ISO you're relying on.

Can you add more light into the scene? Can you achieve your exposure over a longer period of time? If so, then the 'more grain!' fear kind of goes out the window, and you're left working with a larger and more detailed negative for your photo.

Then there are other artifacts of the equipment used to consider: One of the fine detail points that I like about my medium format camera for portraits is this pleasing swirl effect in the out of focus areas. I'm sure that there is a lens out there that will reproduce a similar effect on a 135 film camera, but I'm not aware of any so far.