One of the things I think doesn't get talked about enough is how amazing your photography actually is. I love the shots you get of your kids. Awesome video as always
I love it. The whole appeal medium format has had for me reminds me of a brief obsession with motorcycles I had ten years ago when everyone wanted a cafe racer. I got a beautiful one-owner Suzuki made in the 80’s that was insanely reliable and ran like a dream, but whenever I’d see smelly old triumphs rumbling down the road I was envious, and I just wanted that kind of experience. Stupid little things like the constant smell of gas and oil, a shifter on my right foot, a shaky sputtery engine, just made me think a bonneville was going to offer a better experience. Once I sold the Suzuki and built up an old triumph I missed how reliable and smooth the Suzuki was, and even though it wasn’t nearly a rocket the Suzuki destroyed the triumph as far as speed- not that I rode fast, but having it when you needed it felt safe and convenient. When I had the COOL bike I was afraid to break down on long rides, so I didn’t take it as far. I wasn’t as capable on the freeway so I rarely used them. Ultimately I traded more than I realized to end up with something that was less than I realized. So I’ve done the same mental gymnastics to try justifying selling off my full frame cameras to buy just one medium format, but I already know I just want a slower experience and a louder shutter clunk, and that once I get that I’ll miss snappy auto focus for those rare cases I need it, and I’ll miss being able to grab a $100 lens off eBay when I’m bored. I’ll miss carrying a camera in a small shoulder bag, too... I’ve also done the crop factor math and that usually snaps me out of the GAS as well.
Having recently switched from a full frame system to M4/3, the best format is the one that makes you want to get out and take more photos. I initially switched because I mostly shoot macro. The extra DOF and stacking features of the OM-1 were a big lure and switching was going to be cheaper than upgrading to a new mirrorless body in my old FF ecosystem. Add to that I now have an F4 600mm or F5.6 840mm equivalent field of view lens for a fraction of the cost and more importantly for me, a fraction of the weight. Sure, I have to work a bit harder to get shallow DOF and use a bit more noise reduction. Nearly 12 months later I am a convert and I have more drive to get out shooting than I had for a long time with my old gear.
Non angry defense of medium format here. There is a characteristic with medium format that I will argue is hard to replicate with other sensors and it's the fidelity of transition with focus fall off and color. When I analyze MF photos, theres less of a jittery/blocky pattern visible even when I'm not pixel peeping. It just gives a more organic feel to the images overall. I think the pain-point people run into (not you) is that you can still take mediocre photos on these cameras and not tap into its strengths. I see people have the same fits with other cameras too. These are tools that have to be used in particular ways for the value prop to show. I wouldn't judge a Porsche for how well it traverses rocky terrain. With new lenses emerging that combine a wide field of view with a low aperture, I think you can get close to the look, but medium format just does it with ease because as you stated "it's physics." I just don't think this is a productive take (unless the intent is to curb peoples GAS). These sensors all have strengths and weaknesses and should just be treated as such. Our film shooting brothers and sisters understand this and therefore they acquire certain bodies for certain styles of shooting and conditions.
Lens design that favors a pleasant focus transition is not inherently easier on medium format. Just take Fujis GF lineup - there are a lot of unremarkable optics that give less of a “medium format” look than a lot of full frame designs. Also I found that the common 61MP 35mm Sony sensor looks at least as nice as the 50MP GFX cameras. Also fast wide-angle lenses are infinitely more common on full frame. Medium format needs to catch up here, not the other way round. That’s certainly not what makes the “medium format look” because full frame does it better.
@@RegrinderAlert Exactly medium format lenses are slow... and they have worse IBIS. Bigger sensor but you bump the ISO on lower light... I think that FF does not give necessarily lower IQ.
@@Anadrolus Do you mean OIS? IBIS performance on the Fuji and Hasselblad 100MP cameras is actually great and more stable than current full frame cameras. Only M43 cameras offer better stabilisation.
Having used most sensor formats both professionally and for personal stuff I’m noticing 3 things: 1. Generally speaking there is a difference in dynamic range going up in sensor size. However, I don’t think you will notice the difference between ff and mf. The difference between micro 4/3 or apsc and ff is much more noticeable. 2. You will notice a difference in the “quality” of sharpness between ff and mf. Smaller sensors tend to give you a more oversharpened look and the sharpness gets more and more pleasing with bigger sensors. Mf takes this effect to another level compared to ff. It’s a subtle thing, though. But I can definitely see a difference comparing A4 and above prints. 3. I really don’t care for shallow depth of field. Quite the opposite. When using mf getting critical focus is much harder. And the shallow dof can even be distracting in shots where you don’t want it (landscapes for example).
Point 2 is an optics problem. The smaller the sensor, the higher the pixel density (it's like having a film with finer and finer grain). So, making a sharp lens (over 40-50 lp/mm) for 24Mpx medium format is much "easier" than for a 24Mpx Micro 4/3 sensor (it's technically less demanding) That over-sharp appearance is a side effect, which originates precisely from the need to overcome the difficulty in optics (it's a question of digital processing, not of the projection of the lens into the sensor). . These days it's very cheap and "easy" to make Aspherical lenses of a few millimeters, you can even put them inside a phone. If we remember the 60s and 70s, the few lenses that included them were very expensive, and were manufactured in low quantities (compared to conventional "spherical" lenses).
I think in film days the difference was more stark. A magazine sized page shot on a 6x7cm piece of film had quite noticeable contrast and colour depth improvements over 35mm beyond even just the extra sharpness. And the differences in size and resolution there were really _huge_. I'm lucky enough to have a Pentax 67 and the 105 f2.4 normal lens for that has really, really narrow DOF and creates a very striking look - because it is a pretty fast aperture over a really big piece of film. Digital sensors are not as large as you know. So the differences are more constrained especially when they don't have very fast lenses compared to what's available on full frame. I wonder if we'll ever see a really big digital sensor. Like 6x7cm or 6x9cm. But in essence, everything you said in this vid is true. I think that APSC is the sweet spot because you can actually get very, very fast lenses more affordably for APSC than for full-frame and they're smaller and lighter. So you can match most full-frame DOF with the likes of the Viltrox 75mm f1.2 whereas with micro 4/3 the lenses don't get any faster and the fastest lenses tend to be made to cover APSC and not be any smaller. Like you don't see a lightweight 25mm f0.65 for micro 4/3 as far as I know. But you could slice that cake a number of different ways, I guess.
Yup. Any particular sheet of film, presuming the same quality film stock, has the same resolution per square inch, whether it's 135's 24mm by 36mm, or 6x7's 56mm by 70mm. Resolution is linear to size. Portra 160 would have 4.5x the total area, and that much added resolution. But with digital, the pixels don't really increase linearly with size. You might be comparing a 16mp micro 43 sensor to a 36mp full frame sensor, but the resolution of the M43 sensor is actually higher over that given area--it'd have the resolution of a 64mp full frame camera in that cropped area. If you had the same lens, the same distance to the subject, the M43 would have more pixels on the subject. That's just not true with film.
@thecaveofthedead there are indeed large format sensors, but you can't have them. STMicroelectronics made a 9.92cm x 8.31cm (316 megapixels) sensor for Big Sky, the camera system used to create content for The Sphere in Vegas. LS45 makes the LargeSense, a 14cmx12cm low resolution sensor for raw video. The Vera C. Rubin Observatory has a 3200 megapixels camera. Not sure what the physical size is, but it's an array of 189 (9x21) CCD sensors.
Recently purchased a Pentax 645Z, I'd been chasing this camera ever since it came out in 2014. Cut to 10 years later I finally decided to buy it. I've never worked with Medium format so this is my first time, and for me the fov going from FF to MF has been super different and inspiring to me composition wise. I love the slower pace and the sound can't be understated. I would've bought it for that alone. My daily driver for stills is an A7IV. I really think "good" cameras have become so abundant it really only comes down to the shooters personal preference for their specific shoot.
I think talking generally about medium format cameras is a bit difficult if you're using decade old cameras. I usually shoot older Fuji aps-c cameras like the x-t1 or X-E1 and I used to be really happy with the kind of images they produce. I also got an a7s which has amazing iso performance in low light, but I don't like the Sony colors too much and the lack of settings to change the looks of my photos. This was already a step up in dof, but when I just recently got my GFX 50s I was blown away by the quality it can produce. I paid around 1,500€ which is quite normal for Germany and am using old Nikkor ai lenses, which cover the sensor pretty well. The best thing about the camera though is the low light capability and grain pattern this camera has. It's just amazing and I am finally at a point where I think there's nothing more I could ask for. The Images coming out of this camera have amazing color and dof, which I wouldn't be able to achieve on aps-c in the same focal lengths. If you don't have the money getting a used Sony or Fuji aps-c camera is definitely the best choice but still I think the GFX is worth it if you really love photography
I forgot to mention the different aspect ratios the GFX can shoot at. I really enjoy the cinematic 65*24 which still gives you over 8000 pixels horizontally and makes your photos look like movie stills
I love the focus throws on the AI nikkors. I also love old fujis, the x-e2 is my baby (if only they worked at their original focal length so I could use the 28mm as a wide angle). The Sony colors have gotten quite a bit better with their newer cameras. I had to work with the a6000 a lot to get what I wanted.
You are completely right! Size does matter in very specific scenarios (like pinhole photography), but overall it doesn't. Or it might, but the other way around (smaller sensors need smaller lenses, and give more DoF for macro photography, two advantages of m43). On the other hand, I had the opportunity to shoot a Hasselblad X2D, and the resulting files are great (and large ;-)). But I don't need it and don't have the money (I rather went 4x5, because it gives me options even the large digital sensors don't).
Thanks for this enlightening comment. To me it looks like if photographers were talking about tangible physical characteristics such as angle of view, aperture diameter, and image brightness, instead of magic numbers like focal length, f-number, and ISO, none of that confusion would exist. Everyone would understand that depth of field depends only on angle of view, aperture diameter, and focusing distance, nothing less, nothing more (and particularly not sensor size).
There's no need to have a medium format camera, but I always want to have one... Having a Fuji X-T2 and GFX 50R, I can say: Good pictures can always be created with the GFX, but also with the X-T2... And bad pictures taken with the X-T2 will not be better if taken with the GFX.
As a pro, I love your channel because it makes me consider my identity as a photographer. Am I "give me whatever camera lets me shoot quickly, easily and economically that gets me home on time and let the AI cull the images" or am I "I still love gear that charms me, makes me slow down to enjoy what I do, and gets me excited to dump that card". No doubt we're all somewhere in between.
Honestly I loved the fact that you took the simplistic approach towards answering this question because at the end of the day what matters the most is the output. Also, might wanna set your lens to manual focus next time ahahahah could notice the focus breathing a few times.
get the camera that's fun for you and that's in your budget... something like a photography course, photowalk, budget for a model or vacation will be much more benefitial for your photography than a new camera or a new lens And no glass doesn't matter more than camera either
@@fractalplugs please fuck off... you have clearly no idea what you're talking about and nobody and i really mean nobody on this planet cares about your opinion
I think one of the things that really helps sell the idea that "any camera is a good camera" today is that things like the Brenizer method and speed boosters/focal reducers exist. There are ways to circumvent even the physics of the camera (to a degree) that allow people to not harp on "need" for certain gear, and I find that super fantastic and relaxing as another GAS sufferer. Medium format is absolutely cool and serves a purpose, but it isn't necessary to get out there and take great photos.
Don't worry by not being in focus at the end of the video. It's just RUclips not National Geographic or something similar. I recently got the 645D and so far I adore it. It's damn heavy and slow but if you plan where and when to shoot with it, it will make your day. It so much fun.
When I was a film shooter I preferred medium format over 35mm because enlargements looks so much better to my eye. Enlargement from a large sensor has more detail than smaller sensors which is why some pro's prefer medium format!
I would totally agree with this, especially the statement at 6:50 and I think thats where the opinions on this matter (and all technical photography matters in fact) should meet for most kinds of photographers. If you are not a technician, a collector or anything but an enthusiastic hobby photographer (which is no bad thing, its kind of what like 98% of photographers are which makes for so many pictures of us and with us and around us that mean a lot to us personally, maybe something everyone kind of is until they "make it") the camera really should not matter that much to us, neither should the specific medium we shoot. Call me a romantic but at the end of the day what matters to a photographer should be the photograph. The picture we took, what we learned from it and how we can improve in a way that suits the photography we want to do. The viewer cares about as much about what camera took the pictures as they care about the specific paints, canvasses, papers, programs or drawing tablets that are used in different visual media. Of course there will always be a debate about digital or analog and I think that the discussion is relatively calm in the photography community and mainly driven by people that managed to drive me out of the, at least local, analogue community. People that care about the used medium too much and are starting a discussion between efficiency and feeling that simply does not apply to everyone in the same way. The last few years I have honestly been ashamed to carry my film cameras out on the street or take them to a project even though I am obviously no better photographer, most of these people take pictures that I could not take and would love to take as good as they to. It is all about pretentiousness, fuck that. Shoot whatever however you want to shoot it and use the tools that are necessary to fulfill the job that (let's be honest) you have given to you yourself in a kind of way. Cameras are exciting! Use something you want to use and as long as you like using it there better be a good reason why you want to switch, try out something new if it's the right thing for the photography you would like to do. There is also nothing wrong with getting inspired by an oddball camera you just had to try every now and then, we all love those machines. Just consider if you really have to invest a lot of money or if you just want to. Wall of text and it's nothing but my opinion. Narcissism I guess. That being said I want a gfx100 and a leica m10 monochrome. Maybe one day...
It is often said but lenses is where the difference truly is and one difference that I would also like to add to the topic of gear is compression. I feel like it is heavily overlooked when talking gear in terms of focal lengthes. So much difference can be achieved by taking the "same" shot with a same or similar angle of view on a 24, 70, why not a 500mm soviet mirror lens and its not just the distortion. Use your feet.
Thank you for the video, as ever I appreciate this. One technical quibble. The pixel size has makes no difference to the light gathering ability. The sensor size does because of the surface area, but the the size of the pixels. The pixel size affects the circuitry that powers them, the 'shape' of the noise that comes through and the corresponding number of pixels affects the ability of the CPU to process them. The heat from the CPU and circuitry may then affect the noise output, which is why a 12MP Sony A7s is better for video than an 24MP A7 - the fewer pixels of the 's' make it less intensive to process. However, the A7, A7r and A7s can all gather the same amount of light in a like-for-like situation, and therefore their low light ability is affected by the circuitry instead.
@achaycock, I believe that the sensor size doesn't make any difference to the light gathering ability either. The reality is that the sensor will gather the light delivered by the lens. A lens designed for a smaller sensor will have an illumination circle that is smaller, therefore the intensity of light (as in lumens or photons per unit of area) will be higher and compensate exactly for the difference in sensor size.
I 100% agree with you in every way. I think why pros used them back in the day was mostly for the better skin tones. But in my experience I think whichever camera makes you smile when you hold it, makes better images. Hear me out. Yes my old Sony a6000 most definitely takes better images, technically, than a medium format film camera. However, when I hold my Hasselblad 500cm there’s just something that fills me with joy and the will to bring out my artistic side. I plan the shot for way longer and the anticipation until you see the final image with the characteristics of that film stock just makes IT such an amazing feeling and I think THAT shows in the final picture more and people can see that extra ”thing”. Some of my favorite pictures pictures are those taken with a camera or phone when I had that special feeling. So if a medium format camera gives you butterflies, then go for it. But a tool is still a tool that only can bring out the good result from an artist that loves what they do.
One factor explains why I shoot micro four thirds rather than medium format. I most often photograph birds and wildlife in my local park. I do also shoot landscapes there. I find it both easier and safer to just bring two cameras than change lenses in the field. That's easier to do with the smaller format. Also, while I vary the shorter lens I bring (usually a prime between 4 and 42.5 mm) the other lens is generally the 100-400 mm Pan-Leica. To try to find a medium format equivalent (or even one equivalent to a micro four thirds 200 mm granting that medium format could be cropped that much more) would be cost prohibitive and too heavy, especially since I usually am out shooting for two hours or longer.
A digital CCD is still an aged digital CCD. Where the magic happens is with film. The difference in even a 645 negative vs a 35 is very drastic. I encourage anyone curious in medium format to pick up a budget sub $100 tlr or even an old folder and shoot some HP5 and you'll see the "look"
I dont have the experience with digital medium format, but I can absolutely say that looking at a 35mm frame vs a 6x7 is a night and day difference on film. Its feels magical on film its so good.
I just bought a Leaf Apatus 65 which I have fallen in love with. Its not amazing but I like the look of it and the best part is it lets me use my Hasselblad V system
Sensor size doesn't matter for depth of field - you already calculate the crop factor once (focal length or aperture), you can't apply that correction twice. A full frame 55mm 1.8 lens would have the same background separation on FF and MF; on MF it would just be vignetted heavily.
You're kind of ignoring the fov of the lens here, yes the focal length is an absolute value of the given optic. But the image circle out the back determines the Fov within that focal length. Hence why FFE exists at all.
But still, saying that sensor size affects depth of field at all can be misleading and confusing people. Sensor size affects the field of view of a lens, but the lens will otherwise act the same on any camera. For example, I like to adapt vintage lenses to my MFT cameras and the depth of field of the lens doesn’t change when I swap the camera behind it. A 50mm f1.4 lens gives the exact same bokeh and depth of field regardless of the camera to which it’s attached. Sure, the field of view changes when I adapt a 35mm film camera lens to a Micro Four Thirds camera. But the bokeh is the same, if you stay on the same place and focus on the same distance. If you want a specific field of view on your images with a specific shallow depth of field then you have to take into account the sensor size as well as focal length, but again, it’s not the sensor size that’s changing the depth of field, it’s the focal length of the lens. The larger the sensor the longer the focal length your lens most likely has, which is why medium format shooters can get that dreamy bokeh more easily and with a wider field of view. And with crop sensors it’s the opposite, since you need to have wider lenses to achieve the same focal lengths as a full frame camera you’ll have a tougher time getting that bokeh on wide angle shots. So in short, depth of field is affected by lens focal length, aperture, and the focusing distance. Field of view is affected by lens focal length and sensor size.
Depth of field is defined by math and physics, as you said. The Wikipedia article explains it. The two most important factors in the mathematical formula determining depth of field are focal length and distance to subject. Aperture size has less effect, though it’s often cited because it’s the easiest/quickest to manipulate. Medium format cameras generate the same field of view as their smaller-sensor counterparts while using longer focal length lenses, which results in a narrower depth of field. Aperture has an effect but a comparatively small one.
I know at least three people who adapt Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4s to medium format and they all say it's the greatest combo. I'll die on the hill that the 58 1.4 is the best, cheap lens money can buy, so what you say rings true.
@@mikafoxx2717 I mostly shoot automotive and nighttime, urban landscsoes/architecture; almost never portraits. YMMV, but I have other 50s and this one has been my go to since I got "serious" about photography.
I had a gfx 50s and adapted a Nikon mount Zeiss Otus 85 1.4 and it was stunning. No vinjetting. Unfortunately I sold the gfx and moved on to Pentax 645d. I miss the ability to adapt lenses but at least the Pentax lenses are cheap.
@@erikbirgerson9893 Damn, I bet that was stunning. I'm still considering the possibility of a GFX 50s or 50r plus 50mm 3.5 but I just went R6 for birds, and it's still a fantastic camera for landscape or architecture stuff. Almost too much camera, I'm used to slow and deliberate.
Great video! I recently made the switch from fujifilm’s apsc XT30 to the GFX50r. My experience mirrors yours in a way that the GFX forces me to slow down and be more mindful with my shots. The biggest difference for me was the gap in RAW files. The files out of my gfx can be push and pulled much further than my XT30’s. Someone else also commented on the way grain/noise is rendered.
I think two more factors are relevant, one hard/objective and one softer/ more subjective: 1. Lenses for larger sensors can resolve more detail - imagine two identically sharp lenses for different size sensors, the bigger sensor will make more use of that sharpness since it records a bigger area of it. A different way to put it: A lens for a smaller sensor has to resolve more details per projected area than a lens for a bigger sensor to get equally sharp images. 2. Bigger sensor cameras tend to render space/depth better. An compact camera picture will look "flatter" than a large sensor image with equivalent FOV and DOF. Large format film cameras can project images that look astonishingly 3-dimensional IMO.
I feel like #1 is somewhat strangely put. The smaller the pixels, the higher resolving power needed from a lens in order to create a sharp image. With a larger pixel (typically from a larger sensor), you can get more oomph out of lenses with lower resolving power. One example recently is Fuji X-Trans sensors, where the 40mp X-Trans 5 require sharper lenses than a 16mp X-Trans 2. Something crazy sharp on the old sensor might feel soft on the new one. That's within a sensor size, but it'd hold true between sizes. A less sharp lens on a lower resolution sensor isn't going to be as much of a problem. That's probably why a Canon 5D Classic or 5Dii with a 13mp or 21mp full frame sensor is going to create images that look fantastic with the USM f/1.8 nifty fifty, but the same lens might struggle on a 90D or M6ii or R7 with a 33mp sensor. The lens might be resolving less detail on the larger sensor, but with the fewer pixels it looks better.
@@thebitterfig9903 To me it makes more sense to think of as the lens ability to project detail. If a lens can resolve X dots/lines per square cm, having a larger sensor will make better use of it's resolving power. Sure the pixels are bigger if resolution is the same, but the point is that it's harder to design lenses for smaller sensors as they are less forgiving. The resolution aspect is also relevant to comparing detail between sensor sizes, but not inherently connected to the aspect of lenses resolving abilities.
I don't see how #1 is a thing - higher pixel density is what provides higher sharpness - all other factors being equal. Consider a lens that can resolve two points onto a sensor plane 2 cm's apart. If your pixel pitch is 5 cm there is a good chance that a single pixel will capture both points. With small pixels of lets say 1 cm you will always have a pixel that 'sees' each point. So in the first case your digital ouput will be a single spot of light while with image from the small pixel you will see both spots of light. (The large pixel sensor spot will be brighter than the small pixel spot since it effectively added the points light intensities - this is why larger pixels give higher lowlight performance) For #2: Sensors don't affect image artistic appearance in the way you describe - circuitry, design and LUT being the same. What your talking about is more likely to be the affect of the larger glass that is designed for MF. Due to the size of the sensor the lens has to project a larger image circle and is larger and more expensive but at the same time the increase in size allows you more flexibility in the optical physics so you can make the lens sharper and better manage aberrations.
@@AstairVentof Yes, the point of #1 is that it's harder to design a lens for a smaller sensor as it is less forgiving due to higher pixel density, a consequence of it's size. Regarding #2 I agree it has nothing to do with the circuitry but is a consequence of the larger optics designed for projecting a larger image circle.
I think it's worth clarifying the differences in depth of field between formats, as this helps to truly understand the difference between formats instead of blindly applying equivalence without understanding the basis for it. Larger sensors don't inherently have a shallower depth of field; it's a consequence of matching the field of view and exposure across different formats. Depth of field is approximately dependent on the distance to the subject (or rather, the focal plane), and the *physical diameter* of the aperture. Longer distance, wider DoF. Larger aperture, shallower DoF. Irrespective of the format, and irrespective of the focal length, take two lenses with the same size of aperture (again, the physical diameter, not the f-number), put them at the same distance to the subject, and the DoF will be about the same. But the *angle of view* will differ if the focal lengths and sensor sizes are different. Longer focal lengths have a narrower field of view, and hence you will position the camera further away from the subject for similar framing. Larger sensors "see more" of the image circle captured by the lens, hence images will have a wider field of view for the same focal length. When considering the field of view, photographers often "think" in terms of focal length. For example, the idea that 50mm is a "standard lens" on full frame. To compensate for this between different formats, equivalency (or the "crop factor") is applied: larger sensors need a longer focal length for the same field of view, and smaller sensors need a shorter focal length for the same field of view. However, the *illumination* of the sensor - the amount of light received by each pixel, determining the exposure - depends on both the size of the aperture and the focal length. Short focal lengths are capturing light from a very wide area. Long focal lengths capture light from a smaller area, and need a larger diameter aperture for the same exposure. Hence, for exposure, photographers work in terms of the ratio between the focal length and the aperture diameter - giving the f-number. An f/2.8 lens will "let in" as much light as any other f/2.8 lens, no matter the focal length. And each piece of the sensor receives the same illumination, no matter the sensor size. Which is why "equivalence" does not apply to *exposure.* (However, a larger sensor has more area to capture light - you can have the same exposure while capturing more light, resulting in higher quality, all else equal.) And so we circle back to DoF. Let's say you're photographing a subject with a medium format camera. You're used to a "standard lens" on full frame. You're at the same distance with the same framing as you'd use on any other camera. So, because the sensor is larger, you need a longer focal length to match. You want the same exposure. You don't want to lengthen shutter speed or raise ISO, so you're using the same f-number. Because the focal length is longer, the aperture is larger for the same f-number. So, you're at the same distance to the subject, with a larger aperture. Consequently, you get a shallower DoF.
I believe that you should revisit the statement that " irrespective of the focal length, take two lenses with the same size of aperture (again, the physical diameter, not the f-number), put them at the same distance to the subject, and the DoF will be about the same". Basic geometry and photopills both disagree with that. The three elements that define the DOF are (1) angle of view (not focal length), (2) aperture diameter (you are correct, not the f-number), and (3) focusing distance. The angle of view (and therefore the focal length for a given sensor size) is important because it affects the magnification of the circle of confusion.
@@comeraczy2483 It depends on how you're measuring "depth of field". You're right, my terminology was not on point - defining the limits based on CoC means that you'll have a narrower DoF with a narrower FoV, all else equal. My point was more that the appearance of defocused objects will be very similar, in that one shot will look like a crop of the other if FoV differs. And that there's nothing inherent to larger sensors that decreases DoF or increases the "amount of bokeh". The traditional way that equivalence is described makes it sound like the sensor is responsible for the difference, rather than the optics that tend to be used (and are practical).
I like different formats for different situations and also because i love intresting tools. Cameras are just infinately fascinating things tech wise. Digitally using mft Pana g9 and apc fuji original x100 but in film I have an olympys pen f, nikon FE and a mamiya 645 1000s. For my use cases and budget these have been perfect :) also just different tools for different feeling days. There's nothing wrong in enjoying the tool side of photography. The same exact thing is in every single other hobby or activity involving some form of tool. Even in smithing there's different hammers, there are different type of cars, skiis, paint brushes. Absolutely everything has a varriety of tools and users can enjoy them as they see fit but rarely there are situations where you couldn't get the job done with similar or close to similar end results with a different set of tools and skill than someone else. Most of the variety in end results come from.the infinately variable users and not the tools.
I've made this argument on other youtube videos about this. I've seen it myself in prints from APSC vs FF. You cannot tell the difference - certainly at least up to 11x17 inch prints, which TBH for most "normal people" is "huge". Most of these images are viewed on a cellphone and you're just not going to notice. Even more, at least for "slow process" there's always the Brezier method of a simple panorama stitched together - Sean Tucker figured 3 FF or 6 APSC will get you very close to at least GFX medium format.
There are only three factors in depth of field. Aperture, focal length, and distance. Sensor size can be a factor if you are trying to get the same depth of field on a similar lens on a different sized sensor. You would have to move closer or further away. So sensor size is associated with the distance part of the equation. Tony and Chelsea Northrop did this experiment in one of their videos. What makes medium format able to achieve such shallow depth of fields is that you don’t need to move far away from your subject with a narrower focal length to achieve a wider field of view in comparison to full frame.
Medium format is another tool for photographers. You have disadvantages such as slower autofocus compared to 35 mm, more expensive equipment, heavier equipment, and higher size files. At the end of the day it's just whatever tool gets you inspired because what's going to make it work is the photographer. There's a reason why I shoot black and white film on a Mamiya PRO 645. There's also a reason why I only depend on my Nikon D700 with battery grip and a speed light.
As someone who shoots with a hasselblad X2D often its more about using the camera you like using and that gets you the results you like. I also enjoy shooting with a Pentax 645Z which is far worse technically speaking but so much fun and gets me great results.
I get some truly great results in M43 using a 20mpix camera and I get some very good results with an old Canon G10 with a tiny sensor it works very nicely for landscapes. The Fuji x100VI does a very good job at detail as well. Lager sensors and high mpix require really good lenses and stabilization to get the best out of it. The Canon 5dsr really needs a tripod if you shoot at full resolution and it really could use the very best lenses as well, in order to get the resolution. I think few people get the resolution they are paying for due to lenses and technique. Personally, for landscape, there is A LOT to be said for m43, especially low weight, and frankly often better results than most DSLR's due to stabilization and camera design. For lenses in the apsc area, Fuji does a great job, but the Panasonic 7-14mm is a fabulous wide lens, a tad susceptible to flare.
I may never thank you enough to made me discover the Mamiya ZD, I just fell in love of how that camera renders, the sharpness, the colors, tonal changes, honestly I'm not so sure I can easily replicate those with another camera, so yes, I still see value in the MF proposition, even if it's a twenty-years old clunker like that :)
If you have the same focal length and the same aperture you get the same depth of fields irrespective of sensor size. But with a larger sensor you capture a larger part of the image. So a 60 mm lens at 2.8 will give the same dof on full frame or medium format, but on medium format it will capture as marge a scene as a 40-sth mm lens on full frame.
Well I can take great pictures with an older and simple camera.yes. Even with a wide aperture lens. But like you said it's when you start losing light it becomes so much more challenging. Since I love shooting at night sensor size and aperture become key. If I just plan on shooting pictures on a sunny afternoon I can leave the expensive and heavy gear at home. Which can definitely be a lot of fun. I love my 35mm pocket cameras from the late 90's for that
The main light related advantage has to do with the optics train not so much the sensor itself. 4/3rds sensors are used in the broadcast space because of how concentrated you can get the light with a smaller, relatively speaking, optic over a much larger variable focal length when compared to a theoretical FFE. The trade-off being you're stuck at 13-14 stops of dynamic range in video which is fine in the well-lit stadiums and studios of the broadcast world. For medium format it's advantage, back in the day, was you could get much larger images for the same ISO after developing. (not to mention the dynamic range benefits over the smaller sizes). But importantly you're getting a shallower depth-of-field for the same FoV and much more dynamic range as the light gets to spread out more over the sensor area (the last part is from my best guess).
It also depends on what you want to do. For example, my M4/3 is perfect for street photo because having more depth of field is helping a lot when you use zone focusing method. It also performs well on longer lenses because the crop factor actually help to have more reach. I guess it's more or less about pro and cons, than one being better than the other.
Something that goes by the wayside when we talk about depth of field difference is that sure an f/1.8 lens might have the same depth of focus and same size out of the bokeh balls as the 2.8 on the Hasselblad, the difference is the transition from in focus to out of focus details. The Hasselblad will have much more gradual and smooth transitions because of the smaller aperture and bigger sensor, so just showing a photo of an object framed flat with the background some distance behind doesn't really tell the whole story.
I am on of those who specifically bought a medium format camera for the fact that it was medium format. I think it makes sense for people who seek certain qualities from their digital files to work with. Mind you plenty of full frame camera's can deliver as good or way better results! But I wanted a digital camera to match with my Pentax 67 in terms of field of view and depth of field. Therefore I ended up with a GFX50s and Mitakon 65mm 1.4. In terms of FOV and DOF it matches with the Pentax and 105 2.4 Takumar. Asides from that I find that the 4:3 sensor ratio better fits scanning my 645 and 67 film negatives as compared to my FF in which I have to crop away quite a few MPs. Lastly, I just prefer camera's with quite a bit of heft to them Edit: I also love my Canon R7 and G9II btw!! Edit 2: I prefer MF cameras for both detail, dynamic range, and shallower DOF even when I stop down to F 5,6/8. I like I get quite a lot of sharpness, without apparent diffraction, while maintaining a shallower DOF.
@@drr5117 That is a layered question. Sensor size does play a role. But generally though, a bigger sensor creates a smoother background than a smaller sensor at the same distance from the subject with a similar FIELD OF VIEW. To get a similar FOV, you need different focal lengths for the camera with a bigger and smaller sensor. If I want to achieve the same Depth of Field and Field of View between a Full frame camera and medium format like the current Fujifilm GFX. I would need an 50 mm 1.2 lens for full frame or 65 mm 1.4 for the GFX. Edit: Using the same 50mm 1.2 on both systems would either mean a shallower DOF on the medium format camera but with the same FOV. Or an equivalent DOF, but with a wider FOV on the medium format camera.
One more note about medium format is that it's also different for film and digital. 6x7 film frames are way bigger than any medium format sensor on the market and they do provide a noticeably different look i think. On digital, not so much
the same focal lenght and aperture on medium format vs small sensor is going to give you the same exact depth of field. Its the fov that changes, so on medium format you use a longer lens to achieve the same field of view, hence you get that shallow depth of field
Medium format makes a difference, absolutely. It’s not in the depth of field, tbh I often (and lots of people) shoot MF at f8 for optical quality. Also as you mentioned MF lenses are SLOW in comparison to FF lenses. The real reason is distortion and optical quality. Longer focal lengths suffer from distortion far less, while achieving the same fov as their wider ff focal length equivalent. Tonality is also a big one, I’ve used the leica q3, a7rv, canon r5, and all of the files don’t have the tonality, or highlight rolloff of the larger sensors.
It completely blows my mind, how 20 years into the digital revolution and a host of photographers who have never shot film, we still use the film as the reference point. We talk about the 'full frame' referring to the 35mm film size, but then everything smaller is 'not professional' enough, but then medium format used to refer to the 120 film (giving you 4x4, to 4x8 cm depending on the camera), but digital medium format have nothing to do with that. If you shoot film those terminologies make sense, but in the digital world get the right camera for you and not the film equivalent! You need to balance what you photograph, how you photograph, why you photograph, and your budget. Medium format camera doesn't mean squat if I only do holiday snaps and print 5x8 cm photos, neither if I shoot sports for small print.
Well, a Kia will take you from A to B in the same time a RollsRoyce would. RollsRoyce is also more heaver and costs (significantly) more. Money no objection, which one would you chose? Somebody belonging to my little Meetup photography group owns a Hasselblad camera and allowed me a few photos. It's a work of art, I have no other words to describe it. You are holding a piece of history in your hands and to me that's just priceless.
- The sensor size has nothing to do with the blurry background. It's a function of the lens (aperture and focal length) and distance from the sensor to the subject and the subject to the background (plane of focus). The smaller sensors make a crop of the bigger image if you want to say that way, so you have to move far from the subject and that's what change the relative position of the sensor, subject and background. - You can make 1.8 or 1.2 MF lenses, no problem, they don't need to be bigger, only girthier enough to cover all the sensor. The aperture is a function of the focal length and how wide it's the hole to allow the light pass through.
What actually matter with the sensor size is the resolution. Even if you pack 1000MP in your iPhone camera sensor, your image resolution is bottlenecked by the sensor size because optically there is an upper limit of the resolution you can get out of a unit area of a sensor. If you compute the maximum optical resolution of iPhone sensor (1/1.14" sensor length diagonally, 3:4 aspect ratio) with typical conditions (f/8, green light), you get something like 12.3MP. I would say realistically there is no spatial information can be gained more than 15MP in iPhone sensor size. In case of full-frame sensor, this number is about 45MP in the same condition, so current 50MP full-frame sensors kind of make sense. In case of digital medium format (44*33 mm^2) this number rises up to 75MP, and justifies the use of 100MP sensor in this format. The easiest introduction into this topic might be 'Digital Photography' section on 'Diffraction-limited system' article on Wikipedia.
Wide angle distortion is a big factor of medium format, which is another physics phenomenon (can't beat physics!). The field of view achieved by a 24mm full-frame lens can be achieved by a 30mm lens on GFX and 30mm lenses have way less distortion regardless of the sensor size.
I actually have an a6400 (and I love it) since the start of this year coming from an old 1/2.3inch cybershot, and there are times that DOF are already bothering me to an extent when shooing macro obviously but also pictures between macro and 10m. So I say it's completely up to preference and definetely the style of pictures you want to take!
To determine which sensor size provides the best bokeh, we need to put aspect ratio into consideration. Digital medium format mostly offers 4:3 as full frame and apec provide 3:2. you’ll get extra image horizontally from a medium format (when shooting landscape).in this case the subject is relatively smaller than what you get from a 3:2 full frame. To keep the subject size the same between the two, you have to step backwards when shooting full frames. With all the other conditions remain the same, the further you’re from the subject, the less shallower dof you’ll get
I would say if your someone looking at a digital medium format cameras for a different look, you should look at getting into film. It looks very different from full frame cameras, they (typically) cost a lot less and it's a fun way to shake things up. You can even get into film medium format for a lot less and it's quite a bit larger that digital MF.
I have been trying to figure out how to justify upgrading from my A7RIII to a medium format system for the better part of a decade now. I even ended up buying a Hasselblad back about a year ago.... Still haven't brought it out for a single paid shoot. I've accepted the fact that I'll just buy whatever current A7R model is out when mine finally dies. The reliability and image quality of modern FF sensors is just unbeatable at this point.
Some of my best compositions came from my fuji x-e1 and an original canon rebel dslr. My sony a7iv being technically-speaking light years ahead of those cameras nails most shots. But it’s almost too easy to get a good photo that I don’t work on composition as much as I used to. I go back to my old fuji when I can to help me slow down and work on fundamentals like composition, lighting, etc. I love modern cameras but I think everyone that has a modern camera also needs to also own a slow, and technically inferior camera. Much like a new power tool can help make your projects easier and quicker to finish, the finer details will always come from hardened skills with a good hand tool.
If money were no object I would own a Hasselblad X2D and wear it around my neck like jewelry. 😆As far as sensor size I am definitely a full frame snob. I tried out all the smaller sensors at one point or another and full frame is a must when I buy.
There's so many ways to describe the factors which contribute to background blur. Personally, I don't think the sensor size is one of them. I tend to view it entirely between focal length, aperture, and distance. That's where all the physics lives, and a 135mm f/5.6 larger format lens shooting at various sensor sizes will produce the same background blur on a 4x5 sheet film, or a roll film back shooting 6x9 120 film, or a digital camera back with a FF or M43 sensor. That ought to be obvious--if you just cut out a small piece of a 4x5 negative, you'd have all the same properties in terms of background blur. You just don't see as much of the picture. Where sensor size comes into play is the field of view, which impacts the decisions you make, rather than directly effecting the physics. With a small sensor, you might have to stand further back, or use a wider focal length, both of which reduce the background blur--physics reenters indirectly because you made a choice to switch lenses or stand in a different place. But they're also decisions you can alter somewhat. You don't have to keep the same field of view, same framing. With a crop sensor camera, maybe you want to stand a bit closer and have a tighter shot, since you know you can't get the same subject separation in a wider shot. The reason I don't presume a constant field of view is that I think it obscures the behavior within a particular sensor size. Shooting at the same distance and same aperture with a 50mm and a 60mm lens on the same sensor, and you'll see a difference in background blur--and it'll be about equal to half a stop of aperture. I think that's part of why a lot of vintage "fast fifty" lenses are 58mm rather than 50mm lenses. There are some Minolta 58/1.4, or the various Nikon 58mm lenses. Being a little bit tight does make a difference in the bokeh. The other reason is that by increasing the focal length of the design, they can increase the image circle, push the flaws at the corners and edges that much further away from the center of the frame.
As a Nikon dslr user, I bought a full frame camera not for the larger sensor but to use prime lenses as Nikon did not see fit to release many DX primes.
I gotta disagree on being able to tell. Greg Halpern shoots on a Pentax 6x7 and you can absolutely tell. Larger formats have a distinctive look that I can pick out more often than not.
This is why i bought a Kipon Baveyes focal reducer for my a7r3 last week and ill be pairing it with the Mamiya 80mm f1.9.....ive wanted some old ccd medium format cameras but the one that id want would cost way too much unfortunatly.
Distance to subject and diameter of the entrance pupil are the only two things that directly affect depth of field for a particular lens. Yes entrance pupil diameter is controlled by aperture. Everything else is lens choice and moving nearer/farther. The sensor has no effect of depth of field, only on how close you get or what lens you might choose. Go watch Gerald Undone’s great piece on depth of field for a more detailed explanation.
As an apsc user, I've really been feeling like I was missing out on the medium format bandwagon. I fully realized it when my battery was lasting more than 100 shots and my lenses weren't like lead blocks that chinese torturers would put on their victims. Most apsc cameras also doesnt deliver the camera size expectations that medium format brings. What even is a camera if you don't need a whole car trunk to carry it around ?
One option for a super fast medium format lens is the Mamiya Sekor C 80mm f/1.9, it's a lot cheaper than many but you'd need a Mamiya 645 series camera to use it, and the digital versions of that family are quite costly still
I know this is a digital focused channel, but I wanted to mention a downside of medium format film: scanning is more difficult and results are often worse than 35mm, even when done by good labs. I still shoot a lot of 120, but I never get quite the results I’m expecting (I’m also shooting a TLR, so there is a little bit of ambiguity on focus and composition with every shot).
They’re expensive but gelatins super pro 120 scans have a wild amount of detail. Also If you look at the negative with a magnifying glass on a light plate or with a ground glass on the taking optic is the detail there? If not your focusing lens may be out of alignment with your taking lens. Generally you can calibrate yaschias and rolleis pretty easily.
seems like a skill issue OR a mechanical issue, any flatbed scanner from the last 20 years is far easier to scan medium format than 35. Not only that but it can get pretty close to labs due to the resolution of the raw negative.
It’s the angle from the edge of the sensor to the nodal point of the lens which creates depth of field. So the smaller the sensor the more depth of field.
I think there will be photographers who can make use of larger sensors and create images that exploit them. But the obsession of getting the largest sensor and fastest lens for genres that do not benefit, and the putting out YT videos driving gear acquisition syndrome, is a puzzle for me. Landscapes photography: if you are going to stop down your FF camera to f8 or f11 for depth of field, then surely a sharp F4 zoom lens on micro four thirds (more DoF) makes more sense than a f2.8 lens on full frame. But sure, lug all that up the hill if you want to. Love the camera you brought with you, rather than the one that you always leave at home.
I wish I could find the video - someone compared an R5 to a new Hasselblad - and the Hasselblad just delivered much better detail in the highlight areas - there was a depth and subtlety to the image that the Canon just couldn't capture. As someone who shoots flowers and things like that, I found it VERY attractive ... but both cameras are outside my budget anyway. I'll stick to my aging full frame and just do my best. :D
I have a Mamiya ZD camera and if you compare it against an iphone 15 pro at screen size the difference is noticeable however when you enlarge and go into the picture the Mamiya is a very clear winner. I have printed A2 and A1 and its super clear and sharp you can’t do that with an iphone, medium format is a clear winner if you want big clear pictures👍
I tend to think MF is not about bokeh or shallow DoF, I can get similar shallow DoF using super fast glass on other sensor formats. For me, MF looks to having images with a greater emphasis on 'space', 'breadth' or '3dimensionality', this can be especially more pronounced when the shots are actually not wide open but maybe more stopped down a bit more. When sensor formats choose the same kind of look, where the degree of oof areas remain similar (some context in the defocused areas, not completely blown out to smithereens), the MF walks away with the trophy, the rest feel flat and 2d, only the MF has a look that 'pops'. Just shooting every day objects and stuff with medium format is fun, the way it resolves can be very different from other sensor types. But following on from your intro about low light vs pixel density per sensor... if we're all seeking exceptionally good low light cameras (which we are), how come there are not many low megapixel sensor cameras around? Why have Fuji not made a 26mp medium format sensor camera? Why are they 50 and 100mp? Where are the lower megapixel FF camera sensors (and APS-C ones)? If lower megapixels genuinely brought about an increase in low light performance I think we would welcome them? For 99% of the work out there, we already know few megapixels is still absolutely fine for scrutiny. On Instagram/Flickr, no one can tell apart my 10mp Pentax K200D shots apart from my 26mp Fujifilm XH2S shots in my feed.
A Minolta film camera 1.4 lens goes for like $150 and can be easily adapted to basically any modern digital camera if you’re willing to give up the automatic focusing and exposure
I was at a local linux convention the other day, walking around and taking pictures with my Sony Mavica FD-97 (like you do) and some dude approached me to ask "Hey, is that one of those supposedly affordable medium format cameras I've seen on RUclips?"
I think getting compression with a wider field of view is important for me for larger sensor size. Easier to see with film compared to the smaller digital medium format sensors
Sure, and that's another good point about film and how medium format means many different sizes (these two digital ones I have aren't as small as GFX's, but still not nearly as large as you can shoot with 120)
Being able to use longer lenses and get more compression and being more flattering to human subjects is a factor too, especially on the 645 esque super size sensor on your Hassey.
Back in my film days I loved the photographs I got from my Yashica Mat124. These days the m4/3 cameras are my walk around cameras but whenever I do “serious photography” I still use the Canon 5Dii.
Sensor size does not affect depth of field. A crop sensor and a MF will have the same DOF when shot the same distance from the subject with the same lens and aperture setting. The crop sensor will give you the same image and thus DOF as the MF albeit like the name suggest cropped in. Only aperture and distance from subject matter. The reason why MF is considered better for shallow DOF is because to get the same field of view (FOV) as a smaller sensor you have to get closer/zoom into the subject. If you can't zoom in or get closer then to get the desired FOV you would have to crop in post and are then better off just getting the less expensive crop sensor.
IMO one aspect (no pun intended) not mentioned often is the overall money the different formats have behind them. IMO there could have been very fast MF lenses but the demand and margins have to be there to develop, engineer, and manufacture these lenses. FF has become all encompassing IMO mostly because that’s what the industry has throw their weight behind. The money then yields the possibility of fast 1.2 FF lenses. IMO Sony is best placed to break new ground and push for a MF renaissance. Since they make both the sensors and cameras/lenses, it’s IMO really just up to them if they want to push into MF and make it a thing. There’s only so much Fujifilm, Hasselblad can do IMO when they don’t control the sensor development. It’s not beyond imagination for Sony to do a Contax 645 type camera with sought after fast lenses. Just a case of market receptivity, and business commitment to make MF the new FF.
What is always forgotten is the perspective distortion required to project a scene onto the sensor at a given distance. This also affects the out of focus area.
For me, the MF Look has never been about shallow DoF (because that is easy enough to surpass w/ a 50/1.2 on 35mm), but about getting that bit of extra MF compression with a wider angle of view. The 44 x 33 mf sensors don’t quite get there, but your 645-sized digital cameras should.
I think something people should know is that a majority of the most beautiful films you’ve seen were shot on super35 which is actually closer to half frame or apsc is resolution/image size. So think about how amazing the images of landscapes and faces and all matter of subjects look in those movies and that they aren’t shot on anything close to full frame or medium format
I like shooting with my TLRs, Rollieflex and Yashicamat. Something about the way they work, they are slow and clunky and it makes me think before I push the shutter. I should upgrade to a digital medium format camera.
The only reason sensor size matters is that it affects the kinds of lenses you can or want to use. If you want to do landscape photography with a wide field of view (FOV). Then if you use a 4/3 or other small sensor to get the desirable FOV you have to start using increasingly shorter focal lengths. The problem is that those shorter focal lengths lead to greater distortion and other undesirable optical qualities, also very short focal length lenses are not that common and the optical physics are restrictive. As for low light performance it is only the pixel pitch that matters. It is just the tendency of MF being designed with larger pixel pitch that results in them being associated with better lowlight and dynamic range performance. If you look at low MP crop and full frames which also have large pixel pitch, they behave similarly like the A7S series from Sony.
Sensorsize does not change the depth of field. Focal length aperture and distance do. The sensor size only changes the view angle. To get thw same view angle, you have to change something, he choose to.change the focal length. A 55mm on a medium format will have the same blur as on the full frame, but the picture will show more.
I still feel like there's a lot of misunderstanding over HOW sensor size affects depth of field. No matter what, an 80 mm f/2.8 will create roughly the same amount of background blur regardless of sensor size- the difference is the equivalent field of view. Once you start changing the focal length to make the field of view equivalent, then the background blur starts to change, because you are physically changing the focal length. Longer focal length = more blur (when the aperture stays the same). 80 mm MF produces roughly the same field of view as a 50 mm on a full frame, which is roughly the same as 25 mm on MFT. When all set to f/2.8, 80 mm will produce more blur than 50 mm, which will produce more blur than 25 mm, therefore MF will produce more background blur than FF, and FF will produce more blur than MFT when producing the same field or view at the same aperture. It's not simply because the sensor is bigger and therefore lets in more light- it's because larger sensors warrant longer focal lengths to produce the same field of view as their smaller sensor counterparts. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the lenses. In terms of depth of field, a 50 mm f/1.4 on FF will be pretty damn close to that crazy 80 mm f/1.9 on MF for a fraction of the price. If you dont mind standing a little farther back, a FF 85 mm f/1.8 will produce a shallower depth of field than both
Hmm I do see a difference from asp-c to full-frame to medium format and to larger medium format (digital). Of cause it comes at a big prize (size, price, often breaking etc). And then there are different digital medium format cameras, i.e. my Hasselblad H2D and Fujifilm GFX was not that exciting, I think my favorite is the Mamiya ZD and Kodak DSC Pro Back. They do give more hmm clarity, like the smaller sensors has a filter over the images that makes the details pop less, hard to explain. I know you can not see it when posting it online, but viewing it on a big screen it looks very good. But I hope people stay away from buying these cameras, so they don't get too expensive + we need some more respect for all the dads carrying these heavy medium format cameras around like snappiness has already mentioned 😁
i have modern and old MF cameras and also modern and old FF. (plus one old apsc and one old micro 4/3). MF has possibly an advantage in color transitions and depth, but the rest is technology and lens. You don’t obtain the same kind of result with an old mamiya 4x5 lens or an analog Schneider than with a blue ring schneider or a Leica S lens. But I feel that for other than some professional uses -product, fashion, architecture… a good FF or APSC with good noise technology, image stabilization and a decent lens is the best choice for most amateurs.
My 6mp Nikon d70 still takes amazing photos that I can still enlarge fairly well without too much loss of quality but if I want to go super big I have to get out my Nikon D3X. But I wouldn’t mind having a medium format in my collection
2:00 Nope, it’s true! Often I would shoot something with my Fujifilm GFX50R digital medium format camera. And my friend would take a photo of the same thing with his latest iPhone… and then I feel like an idiot :) because his pictures look soooo much better than my “medium format”. Just recently was shooting northern lights and my pictures sucked compared to iPhone
I have a medium format camera and I have literally never used the largest aperture for any professional photo i've taken. Nobody but other photographers care about what is out of focus. Really weird that there is such an obsession with shallow dof.
The only reason I care about a full frame sensor is when it comes to adapting or using the same lenses between digital and film. My ELAN II uses ef lenses, put those on my 5D or RP. Using my Super Takumar between my the cameras as well. I enjoy the consistency without losing the fov going to digital
True I do find the whole fixation on sensor size a bit irritating. Larger sensors give more compression at equivalent fields of view compared to smaller sensors. This can be desirable look for portraits and landscapes, it's the only reason I'm considering a medium format film camera. Very few people acknowledge this, the whole bokeh point always amuses me. I've seen so many portraits with one eye out of focus because the photographer fell in love with his 1.4 or 1.2 aperture. The age of the camera is also a good point that you've made, my A7 II was often beaten by my Lumix GH5/G9 in low light shots. Now I have the A7C I can see a jump in DR and lowlight ability, however the Lumix G9 is still the preferred option for me sometimes, it's just an all round better device. Better video more usable modes like timelapse, miniature view or stop motion. The A7C has better AF and lowlight, but that's not always the most important to me.
Good point about compression. The other less looked at thing is that there is better color gradation/tonality generally in medium format. I never enjoyed editing m43 raw files if you were going to "push/pull" heavily exposure or color, they always felt "crunchy" with low latitude to adjust.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 an 80mm lens on a medium format is going to give you more compression for the Full Frame equivalent field of view ie a 35mm in APSC or 50mm in FF. That is accurate physics. 80mm is giving you the same compression no matter the sensor however your field of view will narrow considerably the smaller the sensor is. I don’t think you read my comment correctly hope this clarifies
@@shang-hsienyang1284 yeah distance is a factor, but all other things being equal my point stands. Given we’re talking about sensor size the assumption is all other things are equal. If you read my comment you’ll see I use several sensor sizes so I’m going in real world experience too.
Not to gratuitously defend medium format cameras, but they do have lens formulas that you will not find for smaller sensor format systems... and thus you will have the subtle differences coming for the kind of lens you use (e.g. 100mm Summicron or Hassleblad 110mm portrait lenses.. just go check the results online..). And there are so many more vintage medium format lenses that just have a unique rendering and that will only looked cropped on a smaller sensor (e.g. Contax, Mamiya or Pentax lenses).
One of the things I think doesn't get talked about enough is how amazing your photography actually is. I love the shots you get of your kids. Awesome video as always
he's also super handsome
Totally agree, he has a good eye
I love it. The whole appeal medium format has had for me reminds me of a brief obsession with motorcycles I had ten years ago when everyone wanted a cafe racer. I got a beautiful one-owner Suzuki made in the 80’s that was insanely reliable and ran like a dream, but whenever I’d see smelly old triumphs rumbling down the road I was envious, and I just wanted that kind of experience. Stupid little things like the constant smell of gas and oil, a shifter on my right foot, a shaky sputtery engine, just made me think a bonneville was going to offer a better experience. Once I sold the Suzuki and built up an old triumph I missed how reliable and smooth the Suzuki was, and even though it wasn’t nearly a rocket the Suzuki destroyed the triumph as far as speed- not that I rode fast, but having it when you needed it felt safe and convenient. When I had the COOL bike I was afraid to break down on long rides, so I didn’t take it as far. I wasn’t as capable on the freeway so I rarely used them. Ultimately I traded more than I realized to end up with something that was less than I realized. So I’ve done the same mental gymnastics to try justifying selling off my full frame cameras to buy just one medium format, but I already know I just want a slower experience and a louder shutter clunk, and that once I get that I’ll miss snappy auto focus for those rare cases I need it, and I’ll miss being able to grab a $100 lens off eBay when I’m bored. I’ll miss carrying a camera in a small shoulder bag, too... I’ve also done the crop factor math and that usually snaps me out of the GAS as well.
Having recently switched from a full frame system to M4/3, the best format is the one that makes you want to get out and take more photos. I initially switched because I mostly shoot macro. The extra DOF and stacking features of the OM-1 were a big lure and switching was going to be cheaper than upgrading to a new mirrorless body in my old FF ecosystem. Add to that I now have an F4 600mm or F5.6 840mm equivalent field of view lens for a fraction of the cost and more importantly for me, a fraction of the weight. Sure, I have to work a bit harder to get shallow DOF and use a bit more noise reduction. Nearly 12 months later I am a convert and I have more drive to get out shooting than I had for a long time with my old gear.
This my experience as well. The OM1 has made my leave my A7R5 at home more often than I thought it would. It’s my EDC now.
You have more megapixels and therefore a free zoom with a FF sensor, you can also crop a 600mm to have 1200mm with about the same number of MP.
Non angry defense of medium format here. There is a characteristic with medium format that I will argue is hard to replicate with other sensors and it's the fidelity of transition with focus fall off and color. When I analyze MF photos, theres less of a jittery/blocky pattern visible even when I'm not pixel peeping. It just gives a more organic feel to the images overall.
I think the pain-point people run into (not you) is that you can still take mediocre photos on these cameras and not tap into its strengths. I see people have the same fits with other cameras too. These are tools that have to be used in particular ways for the value prop to show. I wouldn't judge a Porsche for how well it traverses rocky terrain.
With new lenses emerging that combine a wide field of view with a low aperture, I think you can get close to the look, but medium format just does it with ease because as you stated "it's physics."
I just don't think this is a productive take (unless the intent is to curb peoples GAS). These sensors all have strengths and weaknesses and should just be treated as such. Our film shooting brothers and sisters understand this and therefore they acquire certain bodies for certain styles of shooting and conditions.
what i love of medium format is the idea that you can get 85mm compression at 60-70mm focal length full frame terms speaking
Lens design that favors a pleasant focus transition is not inherently easier on medium format. Just take Fujis GF lineup - there are a lot of unremarkable optics that give less of a “medium format” look than a lot of full frame designs. Also I found that the common 61MP 35mm Sony sensor looks at least as nice as the 50MP GFX cameras.
Also fast wide-angle lenses are infinitely more common on full frame.
Medium format needs to catch up here, not the other way round. That’s certainly not what makes the “medium format look” because full frame does it better.
@@RegrinderAlert Exactly medium format lenses are slow... and they have worse IBIS.
Bigger sensor but you bump the ISO on lower light... I think that FF does not give necessarily lower IQ.
@@Anadrolus Do you mean OIS? IBIS performance on the Fuji and Hasselblad 100MP cameras is actually great and more stable than current full frame cameras. Only M43 cameras offer better stabilisation.
@@RegrinderAlert Oh really I will check that out thank you
Having used most sensor formats both professionally and for personal stuff I’m noticing 3 things:
1. Generally speaking there is a difference in dynamic range going up in sensor size. However, I don’t think you will notice the difference between ff and mf. The difference between micro 4/3 or apsc and ff is much more noticeable.
2. You will notice a difference in the “quality” of sharpness between ff and mf. Smaller sensors tend to give you a more oversharpened look and the sharpness gets more and more pleasing with bigger sensors. Mf takes this effect to another level compared to ff. It’s a subtle thing, though. But I can definitely see a difference comparing A4 and above prints.
3. I really don’t care for shallow depth of field. Quite the opposite. When using mf getting critical focus is much harder. And the shallow dof can even be distracting in shots where you don’t want it (landscapes for example).
The difference is bigger than you discribe, it`s not skindeep but has more artistic value.
Point 2 is an optics problem. The smaller the sensor, the higher the pixel density (it's like having a film with finer and finer grain). So, making a sharp lens (over 40-50 lp/mm) for 24Mpx medium format is much "easier" than for a 24Mpx Micro 4/3 sensor (it's technically less demanding) That over-sharp appearance is a side effect, which originates precisely from the need to overcome the difficulty in optics (it's a question of digital processing, not of the projection of the lens into the sensor).
.
These days it's very cheap and "easy" to make Aspherical lenses of a few millimeters, you can even put them inside a phone. If we remember the 60s and 70s, the few lenses that included them were very expensive, and were manufactured in low quantities (compared to conventional "spherical" lenses).
I think in film days the difference was more stark. A magazine sized page shot on a 6x7cm piece of film had quite noticeable contrast and colour depth improvements over 35mm beyond even just the extra sharpness. And the differences in size and resolution there were really _huge_. I'm lucky enough to have a Pentax 67 and the 105 f2.4 normal lens for that has really, really narrow DOF and creates a very striking look - because it is a pretty fast aperture over a really big piece of film.
Digital sensors are not as large as you know. So the differences are more constrained especially when they don't have very fast lenses compared to what's available on full frame. I wonder if we'll ever see a really big digital sensor. Like 6x7cm or 6x9cm.
But in essence, everything you said in this vid is true. I think that APSC is the sweet spot because you can actually get very, very fast lenses more affordably for APSC than for full-frame and they're smaller and lighter. So you can match most full-frame DOF with the likes of the Viltrox 75mm f1.2 whereas with micro 4/3 the lenses don't get any faster and the fastest lenses tend to be made to cover APSC and not be any smaller. Like you don't see a lightweight 25mm f0.65 for micro 4/3 as far as I know.
But you could slice that cake a number of different ways, I guess.
Yup. Any particular sheet of film, presuming the same quality film stock, has the same resolution per square inch, whether it's 135's 24mm by 36mm, or 6x7's 56mm by 70mm. Resolution is linear to size. Portra 160 would have 4.5x the total area, and that much added resolution. But with digital, the pixels don't really increase linearly with size. You might be comparing a 16mp micro 43 sensor to a 36mp full frame sensor, but the resolution of the M43 sensor is actually higher over that given area--it'd have the resolution of a 64mp full frame camera in that cropped area. If you had the same lens, the same distance to the subject, the M43 would have more pixels on the subject. That's just not true with film.
@thecaveofthedead there are indeed large format sensors, but you can't have them.
STMicroelectronics made a 9.92cm x 8.31cm (316 megapixels) sensor for Big Sky, the camera system used to create content for The Sphere in Vegas.
LS45 makes the LargeSense, a 14cmx12cm low resolution sensor for raw video.
The Vera C. Rubin Observatory has a 3200 megapixels camera. Not sure what the physical size is, but it's an array of 189 (9x21) CCD sensors.
Recently purchased a Pentax 645Z, I'd been chasing this camera ever since it came out in 2014. Cut to 10 years later I finally decided to buy it. I've never worked with Medium format so this is my first time, and for me the fov going from FF to MF has been super different and inspiring to me composition wise. I love the slower pace and the sound can't be understated. I would've bought it for that alone. My daily driver for stills is an A7IV. I really think "good" cameras have become so abundant it really only comes down to the shooters personal preference for their specific shoot.
I think talking generally about medium format cameras is a bit difficult if you're using decade old cameras. I usually shoot older Fuji aps-c cameras like the x-t1 or X-E1 and I used to be really happy with the kind of images they produce. I also got an a7s which has amazing iso performance in low light, but I don't like the Sony colors too much and the lack of settings to change the looks of my photos. This was already a step up in dof, but when I just recently got my GFX 50s I was blown away by the quality it can produce. I paid around 1,500€ which is quite normal for Germany and am using old Nikkor ai lenses, which cover the sensor pretty well. The best thing about the camera though is the low light capability and grain pattern this camera has. It's just amazing and I am finally at a point where I think there's nothing more I could ask for. The Images coming out of this camera have amazing color and dof, which I wouldn't be able to achieve on aps-c in the same focal lengths. If you don't have the money getting a used Sony or Fuji aps-c camera is definitely the best choice but still I think the GFX is worth it if you really love photography
I forgot to mention the different aspect ratios the GFX can shoot at. I really enjoy the cinematic 65*24 which still gives you over 8000 pixels horizontally and makes your photos look like movie stills
@@j.k.b5014 That in-camera X-pan ratio is so cinematic. I love when I can use it
Let me guess for lenses:
28mm F2.0
85mm F1.4
105MM
135mm F2.0
At least those are my Nikkor AIS lenses for the system
I love the focus throws on the AI nikkors. I also love old fujis, the x-e2 is my baby (if only they worked at their original focal length so I could use the 28mm as a wide angle). The Sony colors have gotten quite a bit better with their newer cameras. I had to work with the a6000 a lot to get what I wanted.
@@JasperBunschoten Excellent selection! The 28mm f2.8 ais was great as well aside from the flaring. It was fun for wide close ups.
You are completely right! Size does matter in very specific scenarios (like pinhole photography), but overall it doesn't. Or it might, but the other way around (smaller sensors need smaller lenses, and give more DoF for macro photography, two advantages of m43). On the other hand, I had the opportunity to shoot a Hasselblad X2D, and the resulting files are great (and large ;-)). But I don't need it and don't have the money (I rather went 4x5, because it gives me options even the large digital sensors don't).
Thanks for this enlightening comment. To me it looks like if photographers were talking about tangible physical characteristics such as angle of view, aperture diameter, and image brightness, instead of magic numbers like focal length, f-number, and ISO, none of that confusion would exist. Everyone would understand that depth of field depends only on angle of view, aperture diameter, and focusing distance, nothing less, nothing more (and particularly not sensor size).
There's no need to have a medium format camera, but I always want to have one... Having a Fuji X-T2 and GFX 50R, I can say: Good pictures can always be created with the GFX, but also with the X-T2... And bad pictures taken with the X-T2 will not be better if taken with the GFX.
As a pro, I love your channel because it makes me consider my identity as a photographer. Am I "give me whatever camera lets me shoot quickly, easily and economically that gets me home on time and let the AI cull the images" or am I "I still love gear that charms me, makes me slow down to enjoy what I do, and gets me excited to dump that card". No doubt we're all somewhere in between.
Honestly I loved the fact that you took the simplistic approach towards answering this question because at the end of the day what matters the most is the output. Also, might wanna set your lens to manual focus next time ahahahah could notice the focus breathing a few times.
Love that you aren’t afraid to say they things no one else is willing to talk about ✊😂 thanks dude!!
get the camera that's fun for you and that's in your budget... something like a photography course, photowalk, budget for a model or vacation will be much more benefitial for your photography than a new camera or a new lens
And no glass doesn't matter more than camera either
"And no glass doesn't matter more than camera either"
Wrong!
Great body + Mid lens = Regular results
Budget body + Great lens = Awesome results
@@fractalplugs please fuck off... you have clearly no idea what you're talking about and nobody and i really mean nobody on this planet cares about your opinion
I think one of the things that really helps sell the idea that "any camera is a good camera" today is that things like the Brenizer method and speed boosters/focal reducers exist. There are ways to circumvent even the physics of the camera (to a degree) that allow people to not harp on "need" for certain gear, and I find that super fantastic and relaxing as another GAS sufferer. Medium format is absolutely cool and serves a purpose, but it isn't necessary to get out there and take great photos.
Don't worry by not being in focus at the end of the video. It's just RUclips not National Geographic or something similar. I recently got the 645D and so far I adore it. It's damn heavy and slow but if you plan where and when to shoot with it, it will make your day. It so much fun.
When I was a film shooter I preferred medium format over 35mm because enlargements looks so much better to my eye. Enlargement from a large sensor has more detail than smaller sensors which is why some pro's prefer medium format!
I would totally agree with this, especially the statement at 6:50 and I think thats where the opinions on this matter (and all technical photography matters in fact) should meet for most kinds of photographers. If you are not a technician, a collector or anything but an enthusiastic hobby photographer (which is no bad thing, its kind of what like 98% of photographers are which makes for so many pictures of us and with us and around us that mean a lot to us personally, maybe something everyone kind of is until they "make it") the camera really should not matter that much to us, neither should the specific medium we shoot. Call me a romantic but at the end of the day what matters to a photographer should be the photograph. The picture we took, what we learned from it and how we can improve in a way that suits the photography we want to do. The viewer cares about as much about what camera took the pictures as they care about the specific paints, canvasses, papers, programs or drawing tablets that are used in different visual media.
Of course there will always be a debate about digital or analog and I think that the discussion is relatively calm in the photography community and mainly driven by people that managed to drive me out of the, at least local, analogue community. People that care about the used medium too much and are starting a discussion between efficiency and feeling that simply does not apply to everyone in the same way. The last few years I have honestly been ashamed to carry my film cameras out on the street or take them to a project even though I am obviously no better photographer, most of these people take pictures that I could not take and would love to take as good as they to. It is all about pretentiousness, fuck that.
Shoot whatever however you want to shoot it and use the tools that are necessary to fulfill the job that (let's be honest) you have given to you yourself in a kind of way. Cameras are exciting! Use something you want to use and as long as you like using it there better be a good reason why you want to switch, try out something new if it's the right thing for the photography you would like to do. There is also nothing wrong with getting inspired by an oddball camera you just had to try every now and then, we all love those machines. Just consider if you really have to invest a lot of money or if you just want to.
Wall of text and it's nothing but my opinion. Narcissism I guess. That being said I want a gfx100 and a leica m10 monochrome. Maybe one day...
It is often said but lenses is where the difference truly is and one difference that I would also like to add to the topic of gear is compression. I feel like it is heavily overlooked when talking gear in terms of focal lengthes. So much difference can be achieved by taking the "same" shot with a same or similar angle of view on a 24, 70, why not a 500mm soviet mirror lens and its not just the distortion. Use your feet.
Thank you for the video, as ever I appreciate this. One technical quibble. The pixel size has makes no difference to the light gathering ability. The sensor size does because of the surface area, but the the size of the pixels. The pixel size affects the circuitry that powers them, the 'shape' of the noise that comes through and the corresponding number of pixels affects the ability of the CPU to process them. The heat from the CPU and circuitry may then affect the noise output, which is why a 12MP Sony A7s is better for video than an 24MP A7 - the fewer pixels of the 's' make it less intensive to process. However, the A7, A7r and A7s can all gather the same amount of light in a like-for-like situation, and therefore their low light ability is affected by the circuitry instead.
@achaycock, I believe that the sensor size doesn't make any difference to the light gathering ability either. The reality is that the sensor will gather the light delivered by the lens. A lens designed for a smaller sensor will have an illumination circle that is smaller, therefore the intensity of light (as in lumens or photons per unit of area) will be higher and compensate exactly for the difference in sensor size.
I 100% agree with you in every way. I think why pros used them back in the day was mostly for the better skin tones. But in my experience I think whichever camera makes you smile when you hold it, makes better images. Hear me out. Yes my old Sony a6000 most definitely takes better images, technically, than a medium format film camera. However, when I hold my Hasselblad 500cm there’s just something that fills me with joy and the will to bring out my artistic side. I plan the shot for way longer and the anticipation until you see the final image with the characteristics of that film stock just makes IT such an amazing feeling and I think THAT shows in the final picture more and people can see that extra ”thing”. Some of my favorite pictures pictures are those taken with a camera or phone when I had that special feeling. So if a medium format camera gives you butterflies, then go for it. But a tool is still a tool that only can bring out the good result from an artist that loves what they do.
I really enjoy your pacing and voice, It makes for a relaxing yet informative watch. Greetings from Sweden
One factor explains why I shoot micro four thirds rather than medium format. I most often photograph birds and wildlife in my local park. I do also shoot landscapes there. I find it both easier and safer to just bring two cameras than change lenses in the field. That's easier to do with the smaller format. Also, while I vary the shorter lens I bring (usually a prime between 4 and 42.5 mm) the other lens is generally the 100-400 mm Pan-Leica. To try to find a medium format equivalent (or even one equivalent to a micro four thirds 200 mm granting that medium format could be cropped that much more) would be cost prohibitive and too heavy, especially since I usually am out shooting for two hours or longer.
A digital CCD is still an aged digital CCD. Where the magic happens is with film. The difference in even a 645 negative vs a 35 is very drastic. I encourage anyone curious in medium format to pick up a budget sub $100 tlr or even an old folder and shoot some HP5 and you'll see the "look"
I dont have the experience with digital medium format, but I can absolutely say that looking at a 35mm frame vs a 6x7 is a night and day difference on film. Its feels magical on film its so good.
This channel is so much fun! Thanks for everything you do.
I just bought a Leaf Apatus 65 which I have fallen in love with. Its not amazing but I like the look of it and the best part is it lets me use my Hasselblad V system
Sensor size doesn't matter for depth of field - you already calculate the crop factor once (focal length or aperture), you can't apply that correction twice. A full frame 55mm 1.8 lens would have the same background separation on FF and MF; on MF it would just be vignetted heavily.
You're kind of ignoring the fov of the lens here, yes the focal length is an absolute value of the given optic. But the image circle out the back determines the Fov within that focal length. Hence why FFE exists at all.
I don't get vignette
But still, saying that sensor size affects depth of field at all can be misleading and confusing people. Sensor size affects the field of view of a lens, but the lens will otherwise act the same on any camera. For example, I like to adapt vintage lenses to my MFT cameras and the depth of field of the lens doesn’t change when I swap the camera behind it. A 50mm f1.4 lens gives the exact same bokeh and depth of field regardless of the camera to which it’s attached. Sure, the field of view changes when I adapt a 35mm film camera lens to a Micro Four Thirds camera. But the bokeh is the same, if you stay on the same place and focus on the same distance.
If you want a specific field of view on your images with a specific shallow depth of field then you have to take into account the sensor size as well as focal length, but again, it’s not the sensor size that’s changing the depth of field, it’s the focal length of the lens. The larger the sensor the longer the focal length your lens most likely has, which is why medium format shooters can get that dreamy bokeh more easily and with a wider field of view. And with crop sensors it’s the opposite, since you need to have wider lenses to achieve the same focal lengths as a full frame camera you’ll have a tougher time getting that bokeh on wide angle shots.
So in short, depth of field is affected by lens focal length, aperture, and the focusing distance. Field of view is affected by lens focal length and sensor size.
Depth of field is defined by math and physics, as you said. The Wikipedia article explains it. The two most important factors in the mathematical formula determining depth of field are focal length and distance to subject. Aperture size has less effect, though it’s often cited because it’s the easiest/quickest to manipulate.
Medium format cameras generate the same field of view as their smaller-sensor counterparts while using longer focal length lenses, which results in a narrower depth of field. Aperture has an effect but a comparatively small one.
I moved from X to GFX for portrait work with adapted lenses and print size for architectural work with the GF35-70mm that I grabbed for
I know at least three people who adapt Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4s to medium format and they all say it's the greatest combo. I'll die on the hill that the 58 1.4 is the best, cheap lens money can buy, so what you say rings true.
@@gedwardjonesthe 58 1.4 is great for dreamy portraits but it's not a great lens otherwise? Other 50's do better, even vintage.
@@mikafoxx2717 I mostly shoot automotive and nighttime, urban landscsoes/architecture; almost never portraits. YMMV, but I have other 50s and this one has been my go to since I got "serious" about photography.
I had a gfx 50s and adapted a Nikon mount Zeiss Otus 85 1.4 and it was stunning. No vinjetting. Unfortunately I sold the gfx and moved on to Pentax 645d. I miss the ability to adapt lenses but at least the Pentax lenses are cheap.
@@erikbirgerson9893 Damn, I bet that was stunning. I'm still considering the possibility of a GFX 50s or 50r plus 50mm 3.5 but I just went R6 for birds, and it's still a fantastic camera for landscape or architecture stuff. Almost too much camera, I'm used to slow and deliberate.
Great video! I recently made the switch from fujifilm’s apsc XT30 to the GFX50r. My experience mirrors yours in a way that the GFX forces me to slow down and be more mindful with my shots. The biggest difference for me was the gap in RAW files. The files out of my gfx can be push and pulled much further than my XT30’s. Someone else also commented on the way grain/noise is rendered.
I think two more factors are relevant, one hard/objective and one softer/ more subjective:
1. Lenses for larger sensors can resolve more detail - imagine two identically sharp lenses for different size sensors, the bigger sensor will make more use of that sharpness since it records a bigger area of it. A different way to put it: A lens for a smaller sensor has to resolve more details per projected area than a lens for a bigger sensor to get equally sharp images.
2. Bigger sensor cameras tend to render space/depth better. An compact camera picture will look "flatter" than a large sensor image with equivalent FOV and DOF. Large format film cameras can project images that look astonishingly 3-dimensional IMO.
I feel like #1 is somewhat strangely put. The smaller the pixels, the higher resolving power needed from a lens in order to create a sharp image. With a larger pixel (typically from a larger sensor), you can get more oomph out of lenses with lower resolving power. One example recently is Fuji X-Trans sensors, where the 40mp X-Trans 5 require sharper lenses than a 16mp X-Trans 2. Something crazy sharp on the old sensor might feel soft on the new one.
That's within a sensor size, but it'd hold true between sizes. A less sharp lens on a lower resolution sensor isn't going to be as much of a problem. That's probably why a Canon 5D Classic or 5Dii with a 13mp or 21mp full frame sensor is going to create images that look fantastic with the USM f/1.8 nifty fifty, but the same lens might struggle on a 90D or M6ii or R7 with a 33mp sensor. The lens might be resolving less detail on the larger sensor, but with the fewer pixels it looks better.
@@thebitterfig9903 To me it makes more sense to think of as the lens ability to project detail. If a lens can resolve X dots/lines per square cm, having a larger sensor will make better use of it's resolving power. Sure the pixels are bigger if resolution is the same, but the point is that it's harder to design lenses for smaller sensors as they are less forgiving.
The resolution aspect is also relevant to comparing detail between sensor sizes, but not inherently connected to the aspect of lenses resolving abilities.
I don't see how #1 is a thing - higher pixel density is what provides higher sharpness - all other factors being equal. Consider a lens that can resolve two points onto a sensor plane 2 cm's apart. If your pixel pitch is 5 cm there is a good chance that a single pixel will capture both points. With small pixels of lets say 1 cm you will always have a pixel that 'sees' each point. So in the first case your digital ouput will be a single spot of light while with image from the small pixel you will see both spots of light. (The large pixel sensor spot will be brighter than the small pixel spot since it effectively added the points light intensities - this is why larger pixels give higher lowlight performance) For #2: Sensors don't affect image artistic appearance in the way you describe - circuitry, design and LUT being the same. What your talking about is more likely to be the affect of the larger glass that is designed for MF. Due to the size of the sensor the lens has to project a larger image circle and is larger and more expensive but at the same time the increase in size allows you more flexibility in the optical physics so you can make the lens sharper and better manage aberrations.
@@AstairVentof Yes, the point of #1 is that it's harder to design a lens for a smaller sensor as it is less forgiving due to higher pixel density, a consequence of it's size.
Regarding #2 I agree it has nothing to do with the circuitry but is a consequence of the larger optics designed for projecting a larger image circle.
I still wonder how an eagle can see so sharp with such a small eye.
I think it's worth clarifying the differences in depth of field between formats, as this helps to truly understand the difference between formats instead of blindly applying equivalence without understanding the basis for it. Larger sensors don't inherently have a shallower depth of field; it's a consequence of matching the field of view and exposure across different formats.
Depth of field is approximately dependent on the distance to the subject (or rather, the focal plane), and the *physical diameter* of the aperture. Longer distance, wider DoF. Larger aperture, shallower DoF.
Irrespective of the format, and irrespective of the focal length, take two lenses with the same size of aperture (again, the physical diameter, not the f-number), put them at the same distance to the subject, and the DoF will be about the same. But the *angle of view* will differ if the focal lengths and sensor sizes are different.
Longer focal lengths have a narrower field of view, and hence you will position the camera further away from the subject for similar framing. Larger sensors "see more" of the image circle captured by the lens, hence images will have a wider field of view for the same focal length.
When considering the field of view, photographers often "think" in terms of focal length. For example, the idea that 50mm is a "standard lens" on full frame. To compensate for this between different formats, equivalency (or the "crop factor") is applied: larger sensors need a longer focal length for the same field of view, and smaller sensors need a shorter focal length for the same field of view.
However, the *illumination* of the sensor - the amount of light received by each pixel, determining the exposure - depends on both the size of the aperture and the focal length. Short focal lengths are capturing light from a very wide area. Long focal lengths capture light from a smaller area, and need a larger diameter aperture for the same exposure.
Hence, for exposure, photographers work in terms of the ratio between the focal length and the aperture diameter - giving the f-number. An f/2.8 lens will "let in" as much light as any other f/2.8 lens, no matter the focal length. And each piece of the sensor receives the same illumination, no matter the sensor size. Which is why "equivalence" does not apply to *exposure.* (However, a larger sensor has more area to capture light - you can have the same exposure while capturing more light, resulting in higher quality, all else equal.)
And so we circle back to DoF. Let's say you're photographing a subject with a medium format camera. You're used to a "standard lens" on full frame. You're at the same distance with the same framing as you'd use on any other camera. So, because the sensor is larger, you need a longer focal length to match. You want the same exposure. You don't want to lengthen shutter speed or raise ISO, so you're using the same f-number. Because the focal length is longer, the aperture is larger for the same f-number. So, you're at the same distance to the subject, with a larger aperture. Consequently, you get a shallower DoF.
I believe that you should revisit the statement that " irrespective of the focal length, take two lenses with the same size of aperture (again, the physical diameter, not the f-number), put them at the same distance to the subject, and the DoF will be about the same". Basic geometry and photopills both disagree with that. The three elements that define the DOF are (1) angle of view (not focal length), (2) aperture diameter (you are correct, not the f-number), and (3) focusing distance. The angle of view (and therefore the focal length for a given sensor size) is important because it affects the magnification of the circle of confusion.
@@comeraczy2483 It depends on how you're measuring "depth of field". You're right, my terminology was not on point - defining the limits based on CoC means that you'll have a narrower DoF with a narrower FoV, all else equal. My point was more that the appearance of defocused objects will be very similar, in that one shot will look like a crop of the other if FoV differs. And that there's nothing inherent to larger sensors that decreases DoF or increases the "amount of bokeh". The traditional way that equivalence is described makes it sound like the sensor is responsible for the difference, rather than the optics that tend to be used (and are practical).
I like different formats for different situations and also because i love intresting tools. Cameras are just infinately fascinating things tech wise.
Digitally using mft Pana g9 and apc fuji original x100 but in film I have an olympys pen f, nikon FE and a mamiya 645 1000s. For my use cases and budget these have been perfect :) also just different tools for different feeling days. There's nothing wrong in enjoying the tool side of photography. The same exact thing is in every single other hobby or activity involving some form of tool. Even in smithing there's different hammers, there are different type of cars, skiis, paint brushes.
Absolutely everything has a varriety of tools and users can enjoy them as they see fit but rarely there are situations where you couldn't get the job done with similar or close to similar end results with a different set of tools and skill than someone else.
Most of the variety in end results come from.the infinately variable users and not the tools.
I've made this argument on other youtube videos about this. I've seen it myself in prints from APSC vs FF. You cannot tell the difference - certainly at least up to 11x17 inch prints, which TBH for most "normal people" is "huge". Most of these images are viewed on a cellphone and you're just not going to notice. Even more, at least for "slow process" there's always the Brezier method of a simple panorama stitched together - Sean Tucker figured 3 FF or 6 APSC will get you very close to at least GFX medium format.
There are only three factors in depth of field. Aperture, focal length, and distance. Sensor size can be a factor if you are trying to get the same depth of field on a similar lens on a different sized sensor. You would have to move closer or further away. So sensor size is associated with the distance part of the equation. Tony and Chelsea Northrop did this experiment in one of their videos.
What makes medium format able to achieve such shallow depth of fields is that you don’t need to move far away from your subject with a narrower focal length to achieve a wider field of view in comparison to full frame.
Medium format is another tool for photographers. You have disadvantages such as slower autofocus compared to 35 mm, more expensive equipment, heavier equipment, and higher size files.
At the end of the day it's just whatever tool gets you inspired because what's going to make it work is the photographer.
There's a reason why I shoot black and white film on a Mamiya PRO 645.
There's also a reason why I only depend on my Nikon D700 with battery grip and a speed light.
As always, an informed and insightful assessment.
As someone who shoots with a hasselblad X2D often its more about using the camera you like using and that gets you the results you like. I also enjoy shooting with a Pentax 645Z which is far worse technically speaking but so much fun and gets me great results.
I get some truly great results in M43 using a 20mpix camera and I get some very good results with an old Canon G10 with a tiny sensor it works very nicely for landscapes. The Fuji x100VI does a very good job at detail as well. Lager sensors and high mpix require really good lenses and stabilization to get the best out of it. The Canon 5dsr really needs a tripod if you shoot at full resolution and it really could use the very best lenses as well, in order to get the resolution. I think few people get the resolution they are paying for due to lenses and technique.
Personally, for landscape, there is A LOT to be said for m43, especially low weight, and frankly often better results than most DSLR's due to stabilization and camera design. For lenses in the apsc area, Fuji does a great job, but the Panasonic 7-14mm is a fabulous wide lens, a tad susceptible to flare.
I may never thank you enough to made me discover the Mamiya ZD, I just fell in love of how that camera renders, the sharpness, the colors, tonal changes, honestly I'm not so sure I can easily replicate those with another camera, so yes, I still see value in the MF proposition, even if it's a twenty-years old clunker like that :)
If you have the same focal length and the same aperture you get the same depth of fields irrespective of sensor size. But with a larger sensor you capture a larger part of the image. So a 60 mm lens at 2.8 will give the same dof on full frame or medium format, but on medium format it will capture as marge a scene as a 40-sth mm lens on full frame.
Well I can take great pictures with an older and simple camera.yes. Even with a wide aperture lens. But like you said it's when you start losing light it becomes so much more challenging. Since I love shooting at night sensor size and aperture become key. If I just plan on shooting pictures on a sunny afternoon I can leave the expensive and heavy gear at home. Which can definitely be a lot of fun. I love my 35mm pocket cameras from the late 90's for that
The main light related advantage has to do with the optics train not so much the sensor itself.
4/3rds sensors are used in the broadcast space because of how concentrated you can get the light with a smaller, relatively speaking, optic over a much larger variable focal length when compared to a theoretical FFE. The trade-off being you're stuck at 13-14 stops of dynamic range in video which is fine in the well-lit stadiums and studios of the broadcast world.
For medium format it's advantage, back in the day, was you could get much larger images for the same ISO after developing. (not to mention the dynamic range benefits over the smaller sizes). But importantly you're getting a shallower depth-of-field for the same FoV and much more dynamic range as the light gets to spread out more over the sensor area (the last part is from my best guess).
It also depends on what you want to do.
For example, my M4/3 is perfect for street photo because having more depth of field is helping a lot when you use zone focusing method.
It also performs well on longer lenses because the crop factor actually help to have more reach.
I guess it's more or less about pro and cons, than one being better than the other.
Something that goes by the wayside when we talk about depth of field difference is that sure an f/1.8 lens might have the same depth of focus and same size out of the bokeh balls as the 2.8 on the Hasselblad, the difference is the transition from in focus to out of focus details. The Hasselblad will have much more gradual and smooth transitions because of the smaller aperture and bigger sensor, so just showing a photo of an object framed flat with the background some distance behind doesn't really tell the whole story.
I am on of those who specifically bought a medium format camera for the fact that it was medium format.
I think it makes sense for people who seek certain qualities from their digital files to work with.
Mind you plenty of full frame camera's can deliver as good or way better results!
But I wanted a digital camera to match with my Pentax 67 in terms of field of view and depth of field. Therefore I ended up with a GFX50s and Mitakon 65mm 1.4. In terms of FOV and DOF it matches with the Pentax and 105 2.4 Takumar.
Asides from that I find that the 4:3 sensor ratio better fits scanning my 645 and 67 film negatives as compared to my FF in which I have to crop away quite a few MPs.
Lastly, I just prefer camera's with quite a bit of heft to them
Edit: I also love my Canon R7 and G9II btw!!
Edit 2: I prefer MF cameras for both detail, dynamic range, and shallower DOF even when I stop down to F 5,6/8. I like I get quite a lot of sharpness, without apparent diffraction, while maintaining a shallower DOF.
Which camera produces the smoothest background blur?
@@drr5117 That is a layered question.
Sensor size does play a role. But generally though, a bigger sensor creates a smoother background than a smaller sensor at the same distance from the subject with a similar FIELD OF VIEW. To get a similar FOV, you need different focal lengths for the camera with a bigger and smaller sensor. If I want to achieve the same Depth of Field and Field of View between a Full frame camera and medium format like the current Fujifilm GFX. I would need an 50 mm 1.2 lens for full frame or 65 mm 1.4 for the GFX.
Edit: Using the same 50mm 1.2 on both systems would either mean a shallower DOF on the medium format camera but with the same FOV.
Or an equivalent DOF, but with a wider FOV on the medium format camera.
One more note about medium format is that it's also different for film and digital. 6x7 film frames are way bigger than any medium format sensor on the market and they do provide a noticeably different look i think. On digital, not so much
the same focal lenght and aperture on medium format vs small sensor is going to give you the same exact depth of field. Its the fov that changes, so on medium format you use a longer lens to achieve the same field of view, hence you get that shallow depth of field
Medium format makes a difference, absolutely. It’s not in the depth of field, tbh I often (and lots of people) shoot MF at f8 for optical quality. Also as you mentioned MF lenses are SLOW in comparison to FF lenses.
The real reason is distortion and optical quality. Longer focal lengths suffer from distortion far less, while achieving the same fov as their wider ff focal length equivalent.
Tonality is also a big one, I’ve used the leica q3, a7rv, canon r5, and all of the files don’t have the tonality, or highlight rolloff of the larger sensors.
It completely blows my mind, how 20 years into the digital revolution and a host of photographers who have never shot film, we still use the film as the reference point. We talk about the 'full frame' referring to the 35mm film size, but then everything smaller is 'not professional' enough, but then medium format used to refer to the 120 film (giving you 4x4, to 4x8 cm depending on the camera), but digital medium format have nothing to do with that. If you shoot film those terminologies make sense, but in the digital world get the right camera for you and not the film equivalent! You need to balance what you photograph, how you photograph, why you photograph, and your budget. Medium format camera doesn't mean squat if I only do holiday snaps and print 5x8 cm photos, neither if I shoot sports for small print.
Well, a Kia will take you from A to B in the same time a RollsRoyce would. RollsRoyce is also more heaver and costs (significantly) more. Money no objection, which one would you chose? Somebody belonging to my little Meetup photography group owns a Hasselblad camera and allowed me a few photos. It's a work of art, I have no other words to describe it. You are holding a piece of history in your hands and to me that's just priceless.
- The sensor size has nothing to do with the blurry background. It's a function of the lens (aperture and focal length) and distance from the sensor to the subject and the subject to the background (plane of focus). The smaller sensors make a crop of the bigger image if you want to say that way, so you have to move far from the subject and that's what change the relative position of the sensor, subject and background.
- You can make 1.8 or 1.2 MF lenses, no problem, they don't need to be bigger, only girthier enough to cover all the sensor. The aperture is a function of the focal length and how wide it's the hole to allow the light pass through.
What actually matter with the sensor size is the resolution. Even if you pack 1000MP in your iPhone camera sensor, your image resolution is bottlenecked by the sensor size because optically there is an upper limit of the resolution you can get out of a unit area of a sensor. If you compute the maximum optical resolution of iPhone sensor (1/1.14" sensor length diagonally, 3:4 aspect ratio) with typical conditions (f/8, green light), you get something like 12.3MP. I would say realistically there is no spatial information can be gained more than 15MP in iPhone sensor size. In case of full-frame sensor, this number is about 45MP in the same condition, so current 50MP full-frame sensors kind of make sense. In case of digital medium format (44*33 mm^2) this number rises up to 75MP, and justifies the use of 100MP sensor in this format. The easiest introduction into this topic might be 'Digital Photography' section on 'Diffraction-limited system' article on Wikipedia.
Wide angle distortion is a big factor of medium format, which is another physics phenomenon (can't beat physics!). The field of view achieved by a 24mm full-frame lens can be achieved by a 30mm lens on GFX and 30mm lenses have way less distortion regardless of the sensor size.
I actually have an a6400 (and I love it) since the start of this year coming from an old 1/2.3inch cybershot, and there are times that DOF are already bothering me to an extent when shooing macro obviously but also pictures between macro and 10m. So I say it's completely up to preference and definetely the style of pictures you want to take!
To determine which sensor size provides the best bokeh, we need to put aspect ratio into consideration. Digital medium format mostly offers 4:3 as full frame and apec provide 3:2. you’ll get extra image horizontally from a medium format (when shooting landscape).in this case the subject is relatively smaller than what you get from a 3:2 full frame. To keep the subject size the same between the two, you have to step backwards when shooting full frames. With all the other conditions remain the same, the further you’re from the subject, the less shallower dof you’ll get
Bokeh is a blight
I would say if your someone looking at a digital medium format cameras for a different look, you should look at getting into film. It looks very different from full frame cameras, they (typically) cost a lot less and it's a fun way to shake things up. You can even get into film medium format for a lot less and it's quite a bit larger that digital MF.
I have been trying to figure out how to justify upgrading from my A7RIII to a medium format system for the better part of a decade now. I even ended up buying a Hasselblad back about a year ago.... Still haven't brought it out for a single paid shoot. I've accepted the fact that I'll just buy whatever current A7R model is out when mine finally dies. The reliability and image quality of modern FF sensors is just unbeatable at this point.
Some of my best compositions came from my fuji x-e1 and an original canon rebel dslr. My sony a7iv being technically-speaking light years ahead of those cameras nails most shots. But it’s almost too easy to get a good photo that I don’t work on composition as much as I used to. I go back to my old fuji when I can to help me slow down and work on fundamentals like composition, lighting, etc.
I love modern cameras but I think everyone that has a modern camera also needs to also own a slow, and technically inferior camera. Much like a new power tool can help make your projects easier and quicker to finish, the finer details will always come from hardened skills with a good hand tool.
If money were no object I would own a Hasselblad X2D and wear it around my neck like jewelry. 😆As far as sensor size I am definitely a full frame snob. I tried out all the smaller sensors at one point or another and full frame is a must when I buy.
There's so many ways to describe the factors which contribute to background blur. Personally, I don't think the sensor size is one of them. I tend to view it entirely between focal length, aperture, and distance. That's where all the physics lives, and a 135mm f/5.6 larger format lens shooting at various sensor sizes will produce the same background blur on a 4x5 sheet film, or a roll film back shooting 6x9 120 film, or a digital camera back with a FF or M43 sensor. That ought to be obvious--if you just cut out a small piece of a 4x5 negative, you'd have all the same properties in terms of background blur. You just don't see as much of the picture.
Where sensor size comes into play is the field of view, which impacts the decisions you make, rather than directly effecting the physics. With a small sensor, you might have to stand further back, or use a wider focal length, both of which reduce the background blur--physics reenters indirectly because you made a choice to switch lenses or stand in a different place. But they're also decisions you can alter somewhat. You don't have to keep the same field of view, same framing. With a crop sensor camera, maybe you want to stand a bit closer and have a tighter shot, since you know you can't get the same subject separation in a wider shot.
The reason I don't presume a constant field of view is that I think it obscures the behavior within a particular sensor size. Shooting at the same distance and same aperture with a 50mm and a 60mm lens on the same sensor, and you'll see a difference in background blur--and it'll be about equal to half a stop of aperture. I think that's part of why a lot of vintage "fast fifty" lenses are 58mm rather than 50mm lenses. There are some Minolta 58/1.4, or the various Nikon 58mm lenses. Being a little bit tight does make a difference in the bokeh. The other reason is that by increasing the focal length of the design, they can increase the image circle, push the flaws at the corners and edges that much further away from the center of the frame.
As a Nikon dslr user, I bought a full frame camera not for the larger sensor but to use prime lenses as Nikon did not see fit to release many DX primes.
Seeing all the dust on those sensors gives me so much pain lol.
I gotta disagree on being able to tell. Greg Halpern shoots on a Pentax 6x7 and you can absolutely tell. Larger formats have a distinctive look that I can pick out more often than not.
It’s the longer focal length look with a wider field of view.
@@robmcd yes sir!
This is why i bought a Kipon Baveyes focal reducer for my a7r3 last week and ill be pairing it with the Mamiya 80mm f1.9.....ive wanted some old ccd medium format cameras but the one that id want would cost way too much unfortunatly.
Distance to subject and diameter of the entrance pupil are the only two things that directly affect depth of field for a particular lens. Yes entrance pupil diameter is controlled by aperture. Everything else is lens choice and moving nearer/farther. The sensor has no effect of depth of field, only on how close you get or what lens you might choose. Go watch Gerald Undone’s great piece on depth of field for a more detailed explanation.
As an apsc user, I've really been feeling like I was missing out on the medium format bandwagon. I fully realized it when my battery was lasting more than 100 shots and my lenses weren't like lead blocks that chinese torturers would put on their victims. Most apsc cameras also doesnt deliver the camera size expectations that medium format brings. What even is a camera if you don't need a whole car trunk to carry it around ?
One option for a super fast medium format lens is the Mamiya Sekor C 80mm f/1.9, it's a lot cheaper than many but you'd need a Mamiya 645 series camera to use it, and the digital versions of that family are quite costly still
I know this is a digital focused channel, but I wanted to mention a downside of medium format film: scanning is more difficult and results are often worse than 35mm, even when done by good labs. I still shoot a lot of 120, but I never get quite the results I’m expecting (I’m also shooting a TLR, so there is a little bit of ambiguity on focus and composition with every shot).
They’re expensive but gelatins super pro 120 scans have a wild amount of detail.
Also If you look at the negative with a magnifying glass on a light plate or with a ground glass on the taking optic is the detail there? If not your focusing lens may be out of alignment with your taking lens. Generally you can calibrate yaschias and rolleis pretty easily.
seems like a skill issue OR a mechanical issue, any flatbed scanner from the last 20 years is far easier to scan medium format than 35. Not only that but it can get pretty close to labs due to the resolution of the raw negative.
It’s the angle from the edge of the sensor to the nodal point of the lens which creates depth of field. So the smaller the sensor the more depth of field.
I think there will be photographers who can make use of larger sensors and create images that exploit them.
But the obsession of getting the largest sensor and fastest lens for genres that do not benefit, and the putting out YT videos driving gear acquisition syndrome, is a puzzle for me.
Landscapes photography: if you are going to stop down your FF camera to f8 or f11 for depth of field, then surely a sharp F4 zoom lens on micro four thirds (more DoF) makes more sense than a f2.8 lens on full frame. But sure, lug all that up the hill if you want to.
Love the camera you brought with you, rather than the one that you always leave at home.
I wish I could find the video - someone compared an R5 to a new Hasselblad - and the Hasselblad just delivered much better detail in the highlight areas - there was a depth and subtlety to the image that the Canon just couldn't capture. As someone who shoots flowers and things like that, I found it VERY attractive ... but both cameras are outside my budget anyway. I'll stick to my aging full frame and just do my best. :D
I have a Mamiya ZD camera and if you compare it against an iphone 15 pro at screen size the difference is noticeable however when you enlarge and go into the picture the Mamiya is a very clear winner. I have printed A2 and A1 and its super clear and sharp you can’t do that with an iphone, medium format is a clear winner if you want big clear pictures👍
I tend to think MF is not about bokeh or shallow DoF, I can get similar shallow DoF using super fast glass on other sensor formats. For me, MF looks to having images with a greater emphasis on 'space', 'breadth' or '3dimensionality', this can be especially more pronounced when the shots are actually not wide open but maybe more stopped down a bit more. When sensor formats choose the same kind of look, where the degree of oof areas remain similar (some context in the defocused areas, not completely blown out to smithereens), the MF walks away with the trophy, the rest feel flat and 2d, only the MF has a look that 'pops'. Just shooting every day objects and stuff with medium format is fun, the way it resolves can be very different from other sensor types.
But following on from your intro about low light vs pixel density per sensor... if we're all seeking exceptionally good low light cameras (which we are), how come there are not many low megapixel sensor cameras around? Why have Fuji not made a 26mp medium format sensor camera? Why are they 50 and 100mp? Where are the lower megapixel FF camera sensors (and APS-C ones)? If lower megapixels genuinely brought about an increase in low light performance I think we would welcome them? For 99% of the work out there, we already know few megapixels is still absolutely fine for scrutiny. On Instagram/Flickr, no one can tell apart my 10mp Pentax K200D shots apart from my 26mp Fujifilm XH2S shots in my feed.
A Minolta film camera 1.4 lens goes for like $150 and can be easily adapted to basically any modern digital camera if you’re willing to give up the automatic focusing and exposure
I was at a local linux convention the other day, walking around and taking pictures with my Sony Mavica FD-97 (like you do) and some dude approached me to ask "Hey, is that one of those supposedly affordable medium format cameras I've seen on RUclips?"
I think getting compression with a wider field of view is important for me for larger sensor size. Easier to see with film compared to the smaller digital medium format sensors
Sure, and that's another good point about film and how medium format means many different sizes (these two digital ones I have aren't as small as GFX's, but still not nearly as large as you can shoot with 120)
Being able to use longer lenses and get more compression and being more flattering to human subjects is a factor too, especially on the 645 esque super size sensor on your Hassey.
Back in my film days I loved the photographs I got from my Yashica Mat124. These days the m4/3 cameras are my walk around cameras but whenever I do “serious photography” I still use the Canon 5Dii.
Sensor size does not affect depth of field. A crop sensor and a MF will have the same DOF when shot the same distance from the subject with the same lens and aperture setting. The crop sensor will give you the same image and thus DOF as the MF albeit like the name suggest cropped in. Only aperture and distance from subject matter. The reason why MF is considered better for shallow DOF is because to get the same field of view (FOV) as a smaller sensor you have to get closer/zoom into the subject. If you can't zoom in or get closer then to get the desired FOV you would have to crop in post and are then better off just getting the less expensive crop sensor.
I truly find the medium format craze on digital to be a bit silly. It makes perfect sense for film though, as a means to reduce visible grain.
IMO one aspect (no pun intended) not mentioned often is the overall money the different formats have behind them. IMO there could have been very fast MF lenses but the demand and margins have to be there to develop, engineer, and manufacture these lenses. FF has become all encompassing IMO mostly because that’s what the industry has throw their weight behind. The money then yields the possibility of fast 1.2 FF lenses.
IMO Sony is best placed to break new ground and push for a MF renaissance. Since they make both the sensors and cameras/lenses, it’s IMO really just up to them if they want to push into MF and make it a thing. There’s only so much Fujifilm, Hasselblad can do IMO when they don’t control the sensor development. It’s not beyond imagination for Sony to do a Contax 645 type camera with sought after fast lenses. Just a case of market receptivity, and business commitment to make MF the new FF.
What is always forgotten is the perspective distortion required to project a scene onto the sensor at a given distance. This also affects the out of focus area.
For me, the MF Look has never been about shallow DoF (because that is easy enough to surpass w/ a 50/1.2 on 35mm), but about getting that bit of extra MF compression with a wider angle of view. The 44 x 33 mf sensors don’t quite get there, but your 645-sized digital cameras should.
I think something people should know is that a majority of the most beautiful films you’ve seen were shot on super35 which is actually closer to half frame or apsc is resolution/image size. So think about how amazing the images of landscapes and faces and all matter of subjects look in those movies and that they aren’t shot on anything close to full frame or medium format
On the other hand a LARGE part of historical photographs used medium and large format.
I like shooting with my TLRs, Rollieflex and Yashicamat. Something about the way they work, they are slow and clunky and it makes me think before I push the shutter. I should upgrade to a digital medium format camera.
The only reason sensor size matters is that it affects the kinds of lenses you can or want to use. If you want to do landscape photography with a wide field of view (FOV). Then if you use a 4/3 or other small sensor to get the desirable FOV you have to start using increasingly shorter focal lengths. The problem is that those shorter focal lengths lead to greater distortion and other undesirable optical qualities, also very short focal length lenses are not that common and the optical physics are restrictive. As for low light performance it is only the pixel pitch that matters. It is just the tendency of MF being designed with larger pixel pitch that results in them being associated with better lowlight and dynamic range performance. If you look at low MP crop and full frames which also have large pixel pitch, they behave similarly like the A7S series from Sony.
yeah all good factors to consider with the type of photography you're doing and the types of lenses you could get for the use case
Sensorsize does not change the depth of field.
Focal length aperture and distance do.
The sensor size only changes the view angle. To get thw same view angle, you have to change something, he choose to.change the focal length.
A 55mm on a medium format will have the same blur as on the full frame, but the picture will show more.
I still feel like there's a lot of misunderstanding over HOW sensor size affects depth of field. No matter what, an 80 mm f/2.8 will create roughly the same amount of background blur regardless of sensor size- the difference is the equivalent field of view. Once you start changing the focal length to make the field of view equivalent, then the background blur starts to change, because you are physically changing the focal length. Longer focal length = more blur (when the aperture stays the same). 80 mm MF produces roughly the same field of view as a 50 mm on a full frame, which is roughly the same as 25 mm on MFT. When all set to f/2.8, 80 mm will produce more blur than 50 mm, which will produce more blur than 25 mm, therefore MF will produce more background blur than FF, and FF will produce more blur than MFT when producing the same field or view at the same aperture. It's not simply because the sensor is bigger and therefore lets in more light- it's because larger sensors warrant longer focal lengths to produce the same field of view as their smaller sensor counterparts. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the lenses. In terms of depth of field, a 50 mm f/1.4 on FF will be pretty damn close to that crazy 80 mm f/1.9 on MF for a fraction of the price. If you dont mind standing a little farther back, a FF 85 mm f/1.8 will produce a shallower depth of field than both
Also for more reference, a 50 mm f/1.8 on FF produces more background blur than an 80 mm f/2.8 on MF
Hmm I do see a difference from asp-c to full-frame to medium format and to larger medium format (digital). Of cause it comes at a big prize (size, price, often breaking etc). And then there are different digital medium format cameras, i.e. my Hasselblad H2D and Fujifilm GFX was not that exciting, I think my favorite is the Mamiya ZD and Kodak DSC Pro Back. They do give more hmm clarity, like the smaller sensors has a filter over the images that makes the details pop less, hard to explain. I know you can not see it when posting it online, but viewing it on a big screen it looks very good. But I hope people stay away from buying these cameras, so they don't get too expensive + we need some more respect for all the dads carrying these heavy medium format cameras around like snappiness has already mentioned 😁
(that's right everyone - stay away from these cameras😁)
@@snappiness 😂
i have modern and old MF cameras and also modern and old FF. (plus one old apsc and one old micro 4/3). MF has possibly an advantage in color transitions and depth, but the rest is technology and lens. You don’t obtain the same kind of result with an old mamiya 4x5 lens or an analog Schneider than with a blue ring schneider or a Leica S lens. But I feel that for other than some professional uses -product, fashion, architecture… a good FF or APSC with good noise technology, image stabilization and a decent lens is the best choice for most amateurs.
I love using M4/3, I focus on what I take picture of, not the pixels
My 6mp Nikon d70 still takes amazing photos that I can still enlarge fairly well without too much loss of quality but if I want to go super big I have to get out my Nikon D3X. But I wouldn’t mind having a medium format in my collection
2:00 Nope, it’s true! Often I would shoot something with my Fujifilm GFX50R digital medium format camera. And my friend would take a photo of the same thing with his latest iPhone… and then I feel like an idiot :) because his pictures look soooo much better than my “medium format”. Just recently was shooting northern lights and my pictures sucked compared to iPhone
I miss my ZD, Shooting with a .08x and the Fujifilm 44x33 sensor. I also built a camera system with a 120mm diagonal taking screen.
I have a medium format camera and I have literally never used the largest aperture for any professional photo i've taken. Nobody but other photographers care about what is out of focus. Really weird that there is such an obsession with shallow dof.
The only reason I care about a full frame sensor is when it comes to adapting or using the same lenses between digital and film. My ELAN II uses ef lenses, put those on my 5D or RP. Using my Super Takumar between my the cameras as well. I enjoy the consistency without losing the fov going to digital
True I do find the whole fixation on sensor size a bit irritating. Larger sensors give more compression at equivalent fields of view compared to smaller sensors. This can be desirable look for portraits and landscapes, it's the only reason I'm considering a medium format film camera. Very few people acknowledge this, the whole bokeh point always amuses me. I've seen so many portraits with one eye out of focus because the photographer fell in love with his 1.4 or 1.2 aperture. The age of the camera is also a good point that you've made, my A7 II was often beaten by my Lumix GH5/G9 in low light shots. Now I have the A7C I can see a jump in DR and lowlight ability, however the Lumix G9 is still the preferred option for me sometimes, it's just an all round better device. Better video more usable modes like timelapse, miniature view or stop motion. The A7C has better AF and lowlight, but that's not always the most important to me.
Larger sensor does not give you more compression. It's not an opinion, it's physics.
Good point about compression. The other less looked at thing is that there is better color gradation/tonality generally in medium format. I never enjoyed editing m43 raw files if you were going to "push/pull" heavily exposure or color, they always felt "crunchy" with low latitude to adjust.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 an 80mm lens on a medium format is going to give you more compression for the Full Frame equivalent field of view ie a 35mm in APSC or 50mm in FF. That is accurate physics. 80mm is giving you the same compression no matter the sensor however your field of view will narrow considerably the smaller the sensor is. I don’t think you read my comment correctly hope this clarifies
@@kcphotogeek6207 Compression has nothing to do with focal length. It's determined by the distance of the sensor to the subject.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 yeah distance is a factor, but all other things being equal my point stands. Given we’re talking about sensor size the assumption is all other things are equal. If you read my comment you’ll see I use several sensor sizes so I’m going in real world experience too.
Not to gratuitously defend medium format cameras, but they do have lens formulas that you will not find for smaller sensor format systems... and thus you will have the subtle differences coming for the kind of lens you use (e.g. 100mm Summicron or Hassleblad 110mm portrait lenses.. just go check the results online..). And there are so many more vintage medium format lenses that just have a unique rendering and that will only looked cropped on a smaller sensor (e.g. Contax, Mamiya or Pentax lenses).