No. But I got a huge GAS attack early during Covid and bought a new 4x5 camera with four lenses and all the other stuff that goes with it.
No. But I got a huge GAS attack early during Covid and bought a new 4x5 camera with four lenses and all the other stuff that goes with it.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?
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?
"Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses"
NO they aren't. Although the more modest apertures typical of 'mf' lenses helps the optical designer, the increase in focal length and attendant increase in abberations is a more important factor.
I think it is actually the other way around.I would like to hear a professional's opinion here. Maybe @Nodda Duma ? In my personal (and therefore, limited) experience, my lenses for 135 format are sharper (in terms of lp/mm before enlarging) and more flare resistant than medium format lenses, so I always assumed that it's easier to design a lens for smaller image circle.
... I got a huge GAS attack early during Covid and bought a new 4x5 camera with four lenses and all the other stuff that goes with it.
Thanks for your comments. I also have a 90mm lens with Center Filter, the only lens with one. I don't print so I can only compare scans. 4x5 seems better. Sharper and better tonal grade than medium format scans. Of course, I'm scanning now with a V850 rather than a V600 which I used for my medium format shots. So that could be the difference as well. Like you, I haven't shot portraits on 4x5 yet. The portraits you see on my Flickr were done with my RB67 a long time ago and scanned with a V600. Hope this helps.I just viewed your Flickr albums and was very impressed with the high quality of your images. Since we shoot with similar photographic equipment and we both use an Epson V850 scanner, I have a few questions to ask.
I primarily use my RB67 to shoot individual portraits and still life.
I primarily use my 4x5 inch camera to shoot landscape, architecture, and still life.
Based on your Flickr images, I noticed that you recently bought a Chamonix 4x5 inch camera with 75, 150, and 300mm lenses. What was the fourth lens you purchased? Comparing the 4x5 and the 6x7, how much difference do you see in image quality?
I also noticed that all your portraits were shot with an RB67 medium format camera. Since I have never used my 4x5 for portraits, how significant is the ergonomic difference and image quality difference between 4x5 and 6x7 for individual portraits?
Plus, now that you also shoot with 4x5, don't forget to change your Photorio.com shooter description from "Medium Format" to "Multi Format."
I would like to hear a professional's opinion here. Maybe @Nodda Duma ? In my personal (and therefore, limited) experience, my lenses for 135 format are sharper (in terms of lp/mm before enlarging) and more flare resistant than medium format lenses, so I always assumed that it's easier to design a lens for smaller image circle.
You think a 80mm lens in 6x6 would have "more aberrations" than the equivalent 45-50mm in 135 format "because of the increase in focal length". Yes, the longer lens will be more difficult to design with as low aberrations as the shorter lens. It's easily observable if you just compare how lenses perform in practice. For example, compare Mamiya 180mm vs 360mm lenses. They do not give the same performance. The 360mm, despite being about 1 stop slower than the 180mm, shows considerable lateral colour compared to the 180mm. Mamiya offered a APO lenses in their line up for long lenses if you needed relatively aberration free performance. Nikon also with their ED options and Canon with fluorite alternatives. But note, always in long focal length lenses. There was no benefit in normal lenses. Another observation: historically, early optical designers found it easier to make good microscope objectives compared to telescope or camera lenses. Because the focal lengths were shorter.
I would absolutely prefer to watch those on my smart phone, all three at once. Less likely to be bored by actually watching them that way .Or perhaps you'd prefer to watch the World Cup, Super Bowl or the World Series on your smart phone?
me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...
Square format and larger negative.What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...
me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.
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.
For some reason, medium format just hits me in my sweet spot. Like most I imagine, I began with 35mm and began dreaming about MF. My first MF camera was a nice E2 Rollieflex. ...Next came a Bronica S2a system that I used for years and years. Very nice images, and of course, interchangeable backs. But my eyesight changed, and I found I could no longer use the viewfinder. ...
me ? I think its because each roll is 24 exposures or less. I like not having to wait until I finish 36 or 72 images, and when I process MF film I don't have to deal with a can opener or shuffling sheets in a tray.. everything else, image quality &c I don't really notice, I just use a camera to expose film I don't care about that other stuff.
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?