But what I really appreciate in (non-RF) MF is the large viewfinder, allowing more careful, studied composition.
@wiltw there's no need to argue. your entire setup is not assembled properly. the aperture notation is format netural, that's what confuses you. if you want 100% identical images from different image circles, you have to deliver the same amount of light per area unit, so no - you can't use f/5.6 for both formats. in fact, you noticed yourself that DOF won't be the same. to create an identical image, the larger format needs to be stopped down more (see? drop the light level), and then the DOF will be the same, just like the perspective. but the exposures will be different.
you're complicating things with focal lengths and aperture numbers - those are arbitrary labels created for convenience. think in terms of volume (of photons) instead - because it's the only difference between two optical systems of different size.
I also started using 4x5" recently because i wanted to have one for years now, but the jump in image quality was not as expected. I assume that diffraction due to the smaller apertures and lower resolution of the lenses are the causes, but
this is not the last word as my experience with LF are still limited at the moment. But the results were often not as crisp as i hoped they would be. At least in those cases where one needs apertures smaller than f22. (diffraction)
Maybe, but it may not be forever. It may come back. There's a reason they make different formats, films, and developers. There's no need to be format monogamous.Have I lost my MF mojo?
Agreed. This whole thing was started by someone re-iterating the still-alive myth of "medium format look" which cannot be reproduced with a smaller camera. Of course it can. Is it practical or not depends on one's circumstances. For example, I can reproduce my Hasselblad film images on my digital camera with near perfect accuracy (resolution, DOF, everything). Of course, focal lengths, apertures and exposure will be different, because of what I wrote (requirement to have the same photon density per area unit)
@Don Heisz your comments are confrontational by nature, and don't really deserve a response, as you haven't demonstrated any effort/ability to read and comprehend my corrections. you're on your own: re-read what I wrote, hit Wikipeida, do google searches, whatever works for you, man.
Agreed. This whole thing was started by someone re-iterating the still-alive myth of "medium format look" which cannot be reproduced with a smaller camera. Of course it can. Is it practical or not depends on one's circumstances. For example, I can reproduce my Hasselblad film images on my digital camera with near perfect accuracy
That was fascinating, thank you. I've not considered the concept of whole system MTF before, and now I'm mentally adding the enlarging paper and enlarging lens to the MTF mix too. When optically printing 35mm and MF I can see a difference even in my small prints, but it's been difficult to put my finger on exactly what that difference is.There has been a lot of discussion here, including DoF calculations, but amazingly no one has mentioned a very important point with medium format, that contributes to the "look" and has all to do with film.
Film doesn't have a constant MTF curve. The cycles/mm (resolution) it can resolve decrease rather sharply. For example Fomapan 400 has lowers down to 50% MTF at about 25 cycles/mm and then it goes down on a cliff. 100% MTF is achieved only from 0 to 10 cycles/mm.
Lenses also have a MTF curve of course, which also decrease sharply after a certain point. When you multiply the MTF (modulation transfer functions) of the lens and the camera, you have the system MTF. Lenses are not perfect.
Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses. For example, an 80/2.8 lens for 6x6, done with simply 4 elements (tessar formula) could give perfectly fine results. Even a three-element 80/3.5 can give really good results in 6x6. However, the pro 6x6 cameras have a 80/2.8 of six elements. This means much better correction of abberations and a better MTF too.
Lenses in MF are often of smaller relative aperture and every lens designer will tell you that, everything else equal (focal length, cost target, technology, glass type availability), a slower lens can be much better corrected. Even half a stop slower will make a big difference in the amount of correction that can be obtained. Consider for example a 150/4 lens in 6x6. This will give you an image more or less equivalent to a 85/2 in 35mm cameras, in terms of depth of field and angle of view. Yet, the medium format lens is f4 and thus can be better corrected.
Now, 10 or 20 cycles/mm, in medium format, means much more detail than 10 or 20 cycles/mm in 35mm...
What does this all mean? Combine the fact that 10 or 20 cycles/mm convey finer detail (with greater clarity) in MF, with the fact that the MF lenses are better corrected, and this means that the system MTF curve of a medium format camera is able to resolve finer detail with greater clarity. I'm not talking about resolution alone, i'm talking about MTF which takes into account contrast and resolution.
This greater clarity increases the visual perception of "narrower DoF", since the subject is reproduced with an increased crispness. There is an increased "3D look" because of the main subject being reproduced with greater clarity.
Better corrected lenses also mean better rendering of out of focus areas, for example the "bokeh balls" won't turn into rugby balls at the edge on a better corrected lens. Or won't reproduce as soap bubbles (overcorrected sperical aberration). This is just an example -- but in a better corrected lens the overall rendering of out of focus areas will be better.
So, friends, the combination of all of this is what makes the "medium format look" and it can further be appreciated when optically printing MF pictures.
Yes, digital. Because on a digital camera, the sensor's MTF response is almost ruler flat. This makes the system MTF a lot higher. But this is a film forum. Film, with its peculiar MTF curve, is what makes the difference.
This post is dedicated to @wiltw .
When optically printing 35mm and MF I can see a difference even in my small prints, but it's been difficult to put my finger on exactly what that difference is.
I regularly print 35mm as square, requiring higher magnification to match my MF prints. Because of the magnification, I end up using the same lens as for MF in some instances. Depending on the film being used, a casual inspection does not reveal the smaller format. Look at Lewis Balz's work with a Leica on Kodak Technical Pan. The first time I saw the prints, I would have sworn they were shot with a view camera.Note that the MTF of the enlarging lens also gets into the "system" equation giving further advantage to the bigger format.
I regularly print 35mm as square, requiring higher magnification to match my MF prints. Because of the magnification, I end up using the same lens as for MF in some instances. Depending on the film being used, a casual inspection does not reveal the smaller format. Look at Lewis Balz's work with a Leica on Kodak Technical Pan. The first time I saw the prints, I would have sworn they were shot with a view camera.
to me the jump in image quality from 35mm to MF is enormous. I expected a similar jump from MF to LF but, there was none. to meMF is the ideal compromise between weight, complexity and image quality. If I could have only one camera, it would be my Hasselblad 501c.
Yes, dust is proportionately larger on 35mm negs, but there is a smaller area to claen. The larger MF neg can collect more dust os there is a trade-off. I generally can deal better with the smaller dust spots--they are easier to spot than the larger ones. Of course that is manually on a darkroom print. A digital scan is about the same effort with either one.+1
This is it for me really, and a hell of a lot easier to print in the darkroom in terms of how large dust might appear. If I would have just tried out a Hasselblad Flexbody long ago I could have forgone 4x5 all together.
Medium format is and always will be my favorite and most productive format, it’s where I make my best images.
I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.I love using all my medium format gear. I use it the most out of all the formats. 35mm is second and 4x5 third. Medium format is the perfect compromise between quality and economy. Some of the cameras work just as much in features like a newer 35mm SLR. And the fact you get less frames per roll, means I don't have to blow off so many shots before I can develop the roll. I still use 35mm, but very limited on that today. I just like using 120 film, no matter which medium format camera I decide to use for the day. Film options for 120 are almost as good as 35mm, and the price per roll is about the same. And the quality of the negatives is so much better then 35mm. 4x5 has its uses, but its slow to use, and when Im not able to shoot at that pace, I dont use it. But 4x5 is a format where the quality is above what is really needed for the shot. Medium format is good enough in most cases.
Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.
Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?
I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.
@wiltw
Yes, the better tonality and "smoothness" was very pleasing and immediately visible.
Even at f45 i was blown away because the slide almost looked like a window to the real scene. But there was some kind of softness to the details. At f22, the details were noticeably sharper.
I will see how everything turns out at the sizes i want to print.
Your statement regarding the smaller enlargement factor with equally sized prints makes sense to me, of course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?