Size Matters! Medium Format VS Full Frame
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2022
- You can stay up to date with Matts latest work at www.mattgranger.com/ - join the mailing list!
Check out the Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses...
/ _mattgranger
/ mattgranger 
Хобби
Day and night is the difference really. I don’t care much about which camera blurs more the background, I was looking at which camera renders better the transition from light to shadows. The Hasselblad wins hands down. Amazing .
For me the main factor for medium format is the megapixels across a larger sensor creating smoother steps in transitions between colors and tones. It gives a smooth sharpness from what i observed and also the bokeh. A good way to describe it is like how videogames are transitioning to ray tracing. Somehow larger sensors and higher megapixels seem to pick up the subtleties of light and how it bounces and carries. Printing a billboard is not the only reason to justify extremely high megapixels ;)
You literally can make that distinction as full frame also have very high MP cameras anything beyond 24-MP
100% in agreeance except for one point...
Billboards are really low megapixels, F-Stoppers did a video on that very thing 5 years back - they are like 2 megapixels.
ruclips.net/video/UCaZt5ndRW0/видео.html
I get your meaning but it's just a really bad example.
PS. I know it's been a year since this video, but I am about to buy the X2d 100c and have been watching everything Hasselblad the last week or so, forgive me.
@@mv_photoworx billboards are also many many yards away so you can print a photo from a potato and you won't mind the lack of resolution. I'm very interested in medium format for the points i made and wether i print in a wallet size or the side of a building is a non issue for me 😅 tonal gradients and dynamic range is my jam. High rez means more steps in gradation, WANT! 🙌 i hope you get that camera! I'd love to see what it can do! So exciting!
@@isaiasanchez1987 I'll just say, I think you misunderstood, and no offense was intended.
@@mv_photoworx all good my man! That's why chats are better in person. 😎 happy shooting!
Before Covid I shot the GFX 100 and the 100 S for a while, and though the differences tend to get obliterated online, if you want to produce large scale (measured in feet, not inches), high resolution prints as I was doing back then, then medium format provides the next level of detail and color gradation which viewers do feel even if they don’t know how to explain why. But these days I’m shooting for different needs, and wanting a camera that’s more ergonomic and customizable, as well as provides a solid range of hybrid video options. So at this point I’m working with the Z9 and not missing the clunky ergonomics of the GFX bodies. If I need to do another large scale print project, I will rent medium format going forward.
Agreed. On line the advantages you register are nigh on intangible but if you print big they are very apparent. Friend of mine runs a very successful business shooting the the western Alps and selling colossal prints to large Swiss corporations and for display in larger homes. Most of his work has involved using about 30-45Mp cameras. last year we got him going with the GFX 100. As he now declares, there is a before and after GFX chapter in his output. The calibre of the image when recovering deep shadows from the BSI 100MP sensor is also, I find, a definite advantage over FF BSI sensors. Its not huge but the image definitely degrade less as the blacks and shadows are pushed hard at lower ISO settings.
The Hasselblad feels alive while the Nikon feels more artificial to me.
It used to be that the medium format look consisted of waist level POV, no grain, and dramatic lighting. The 35mm Leica changed it to eye level immediacy-of-the-moment, emphasizing emotion, reducing people to symbols in the pursuit of available light. One of the ironies of photo history is that in the film days depth of field was the holy grail, whearas today its narrow focus.
Thanks for the comparison Matt! As we all know, at the end of the day, having the right tool for the job is what matters. I have been lucky enough to start my professional photography career in 1976 and to have spent way too much money along the way. For almost all of my commercial work, I shoot M43'rds (executive portraits, aviation, motorsports and products) which has worked beautifully. Occasionally I'll take out a 500CM and as of late for certain personal projects the Fuji GFX100s, and am looking forward to testing the X2D at some point when the 90mm becomes available. Between you and me, I just wish I had a 24mpx 6x6 monochrome square digital back for the 500CM 🙂 Wishing you all the best!
I pretty convinced that actually the "medium format look" is not coming from the depth-of-field, but it comes from the color depth and the smooth transition between different levels of colors (Although the bokeh coming from these beautiful lenses also help). Therefore I think difference boils down to the fact that the Hasselblad files contain a color depth of 16-bit compared to 14-bit in the Nikon (or other full frame cameras(, resulting in a much more smooth and pleasing rendition for the MF cameras. In any case, I hope the full frame camera manufacturers improve this aspect of the 35mm sensors in the next generation bodies.
Maybe for some people, but the term 'medium format look' has been around since before digital - when we were all using the same film stocks...
The Hass kills it. More demanding to use in some ways. But for super detail, colour and tonality it's where it's at. Also this level of quality was previously in the realms of Phase 1 and the big Blads at 30 grand and upwards. So relatively speaking, it's pretty reasonable.
This camera is a bargain for what it is.
I loved my Nikon F3. The process of planning including understanding what to do with environments and composition was instilled then. I had a blast with then Hasselblad 500 and never longed for the future method of subject separation. I was super happy with my first full frame canon 5dmk1 with its output playing well with my publishers of the time. I appreciated the evolution (for me) to my Nikon D810 output and novelty of more automation. I did miss the larger scannable 120 frames and was very happy when the Fuji GFX 50s came to be as even with a slightly larger sensor, I noticed the gains in output then later when I swapped it for 100s loved it even more. I didn't feel like I lost anything as I was not reliant of autofocus even with the Nikon. Whatever inspires someone to take photos they love and for a lot of people that is also the process including the dying art of actually focusing a lens AND having context in an image including understanding how to compose and structure composition. some people really do just want a point and shoot camera and this is great too. There are soo many cameras that are like that now so many to choose from. This new crutch of simply shooting with the narrowest depth of field possible in order to not have to worry about the environment by obliterating it ie the instagram look has pushed manufacturers to work on sharpness on lenses wide open which is interesting but if you need environmental context in professional work then this is only good for keeping the lenses nice and bright.
If only one eye needs to be in focus in an image or some small detail then there are solutions in every format to take care of that if someone feels like they want/need that for creative or technical reasons.
Sure any APS(x) sized system like Fuji XH2(s) will do for the vast majority of people buying cameras at the moment. Awesome, no need to bother with full frame options as for web and lower scale print and the cost of these systems are low enough to keep consumers happy with being able to piece together a full range of lenses and since the focusing aspect of photography can be removed by aid of eye, bird, dog, face, cat, building motion tracking etc, you only need to point and click when the subject is in frame. Great for sports and fast moving wild life or children like the Z9 and the newer Sony cams. Having to shoot directed pro models, cars, products still life, landscape or portraits, anything will do. The choice of cam is left up to budget. If a photographer does not know what 16bit vs 14, 8 bit etc means for colour gradations for skin, sky etc then it doesn't matter (yet). Eventually if Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Sony feel like their Full frame customers do not care, they will eventually incorporate this tech in the smaller formats. That is evolution. It will happen whether oddly fannish users feel like a file size if all they will "ever" need or memory car, computer sensor size etc thinks so or not.
Love my 100s as a tool. I am liking the X2D 16 bit default output as a starting point. I see that more as a great time saver. The Hasselblad natural colour system is interesting for humans. That's my thing, may not be yours. The real question is that. What do you ACTUALLY shoot. For me the video in my 100s LOOKS amazing when coupled with NINJA external recorder (recorder$,Connection$,external audio$,Vmount batteries$,tripod upgrade to hold the lens and monitor properly without losing you whole investment$). But I used it twice for two projects. Not useful to me. I would actually be happier with a separate dedicated straight video system. Yikes this is way too long. Sorry. Then Nikon was great! The Hasselblad is in a different league but as you stated well enough. It only matters if it matters...
Until you get to the level of satisfying art directors, the client will not pay for larger format quality. They just want a stand-in so the guests can get drunk.
When comparing DOF, it's best to compare at "print size" rather than 100% zoom, especially with there is a significant resolution difference since "zooming in" while pixel peeping will effectively reduce DOF, then "zooming out" for print will increase DOF. The DOF we really care about is print-size.
Good comparison but I'm getting to the point where the differences in sharpness don't matter as much. I know photographers will always fuss about it but in the end clients can't see or don't care about such subtle differences. Nothing wrong with someone who obsesses over such details but to me it's not worth the fuss. Not bashing equipment here, I'm just saying maybe we need to start looking at the end product without pixel peeping. Thanks for the comparison Matt. You helped me settle my own debate.
Remember when D800 with it's 36mp was close or even better than medium format? And many people said that 36mp is more than enough, actually anything more than 20mp is good. Was not that long ago, not even 10 years. So I agree, the pixel peeping is going crazy. Even it printing billboard, you still have more than enough with something like 20mp. Think of how many iconic photos have been made with Canon 5D Mk2 and Mk3? Or Nikon D4s. Not even talking about film. So your settlement is correct one imho.
thanks for this vid, the Hassel really had the special sauce regarding skin tones, and also the detail, man those skin tones!!!!
Thanks for the nice video 😊
I absolutely enjoy my Fujica GL690 with set of the 65mm, 100mm and 180mm lenses... It is literally the most compact medium format film set, with it's biggest suze 6x9... With Kodak Portra it makes amazing portraits... Only minus is price of the film and only 8 shots per roll...
Any other time I am more than happy with my Nikon Z7ii, pared with 200mm f2vrii, it gives that medium format look, but with bulky and heavy set, plus sometimes no space to go further from the model...😉😜
The REAL big advantage of the X2D is synchronization at all speeds (not GFX); I would almost buy it for that, no need for HSS so no flash power problem outside....I dream of having a Nikon with sync 1/1000. For the rest it's very marketing and customers don't care.
I't not about depth of field. It's field of view that makes it look different. Also the out of focus drop off is more gradual and subtle in larger formats.
So there is only one conclusion ..... the larger the matrix, the better .... it was and will always be so .... well, the user himself must decide what he needs and for what tasks.
I'm shooting m4/3 and x1d2 at the same time for street (xcd3475mm and 35f095). When highlights and shadows become priority, the MF stands out over m43. During good day with great lighting, both systems doing equally well, even iphone excel under great lighting conditions. I use both systems for my creative adaptation. Cameras are just tools, don't forget that.
The magic medium format look consist in my opinion, in the extra crispness vs. fullframe (because of the bigger pixels/sensor) a bit less noise at lower and higher isos, is also visible side by side with newer bodys. Specially when cropping....higher resolutions do also matter a bit...the 16bit files are also unmatched in terms of nuances and latitude vs 14bit. specially pictures who have lots of greentones or skin in it. Shadow and highlight rolloff is a super important "medium format look" factor. And also when pushing 2 or 3 stops in post, the color information and graduations are retained much cleaner and more realistic on medium format. Same story with aps-c vs fullframe...aps-c vs. M4/3 same. M4/3 vs. mobile not anymore😂
Big thing for me, on most hasselblads, is also the fantastic color science...these files look so good and almost finished out of cam... in comparaison, all fullframe files look a bit compressed and wrong, which they are. 14bit nikon or canon raws @ 14bit/60mb vs 200mb 16bit raws is a big thing. Specially on a 10bit calibrated monitor😄
For me, X-T5 / M10 fantastic ! Does what they say. X1D medium format dynamic range wow! The experience of MF is an eye opener (for me). Great video as always, very informative.
Hassel all the way on these photos, a touch of local contrast would top off the nikon to the Hass level. thanks Matt, this was a good one.
I think you said it -- if you're shooting anything that moves (fast, anyhow) you want a modern full-frame from any of the big three. For anything else, Hasselblad glass and colors, and now apearantly low-light performance and dynamic range, will give you way better results. Noteable in this comparison especially to me are the colors. I prefer Nikon colors to Canon (by far) and Sony (by a little bit) yet the X2D blows it away. And you're not even using Phocus with it's "True Color Solution" fully implemented. The lack of at least some modern auto-focus on the X2D is inexcusable to me, but otherwise, it is an amazing camera. (Why doesn't Hasselblad just license Sony's entire Face/Eye Continuous Tracking software package, given Sony makes the phase-detect sensor elements in this camera? That part makes no sense to me at all). Thanks for keeping up with new videos and findings on this camera!
Nice vid and comments. We X2D owners/shooters are now waiting to a) receive any of the new XCD "V" design lenses - hopefully I only have a week or so to wait and b) for Hasselblad to release a series of firmware updates and updates to Phocus Mobile that allow us to remotely control the X2D, gives us back many of the features we had in the X1D-ii, like crop ratios and focus bracketing (but certainly NOT video), some GPS solution, and then the Improvements like AF-C we are hoping Hasselblad are able to deliver as well. I have no doubt that, since Hasselblad has no legacy of products with these capabilities, 3D tracking and eye/face AF will take longer to get right. AND yes it would be great when these are delivered. BUT - no thanks I never wanted a X100/100s -- the engineer's camera -- shooting with leaf shutters make a huge difference for me.
What lens have you been using in the intro? This dreamy look reminds me so much of my Ai-S 50mm f/1.2
Did you use a pro mist filter or something similar on the camera you used (on the in-studio portions) to record this comparison? I noticed there was blooming around your hands and that’s kind of the effect that my dreams fx and pro mist filters produce.
Great information about the DoF between the two!
Wide angle lenses being less distorted is what interests me a lot.
I have the X2D on order. Your vids and others have reassured me that it will provide a really good image. That is what I want. I currently have the M8.2, M9, a pair of M240's and the A7M III. I really believe the X2D will eclipse all of them for my purposes. Thanks for the many vids on the X2D which is the focus of my attention right now.
My A7R2 has been fine but the tech was immature. Of all the X2D specs I think 16bit is the most significant. I’d love to hear you expound on that factor. Your 100mpx also gives you crop/zoom power. That’s a great feature from my Sony at its lowly 43mpx.
For a specific project I'm planing I will conceder getting the Hasselblad. For this particular project I do not need focusing speed nor do I need very deep depth of field. However, I do need as much resolution as I can get, with out having to mortgage everything I own. For all all other project I'm working on my ff is more than enough and my iPhone is good for the rest.
Having a H5D I am considering changing to X2D. My usual system is Z9 for faster objects nut I like the details and colors of the Hassy and don’t want to miss it.
H5D is such a nicer camera though
X2D for color, hands down. On another note, if one sticks to ~ 50 mm, it seems like the X2D is a more 'compact' package. How is it to carry around versus the Nikon? At the end of the day, which hurts your neck less?
The difference is not resolution or high iso but in color depth. In landscape photos the medium format color transition is just different. Nikon Z7 is the closest in full frame world but still pretty far behind Fuji gfx 100s. In close up portraits less obvious but under studio lighting, you can still tell the skin tone transition from highlights to shadow.
As in most everything photographic, the bigger you go, the expense and the space is exponentially larger. This goes for of course the camera, the lens and the amount of hard drive space as well. For all around photographers wishing to have one camera to meet their needs I would say a high megapixel sensor, coupled with the versatility of wide to super telephoto lenses and the ability for video.
I have shot Canon L glass with a Techart autofocus adapter on the Hasselblad X1D Mark ii. Some work pretty well, like the 85mm f1.2, which shows almost no vignetting, and focuses well. That lens renders an insane bokeh on the Hasselblad. Unfortunately, the adapter doesn’t work on the X2D, but Techart have upgraded their firmware before, so maybe in the future, I can use these lenses with autofocus on the X2D. I used the Canon 135mm f2 on the adapter for a couple of weddings and got some amazing images. So actually you can to some extent use these lenses with wider aperture and with autofocus on medium format cameras, though I haven’t tried this setup on Fuji GFX.
Great video 📹
Would like to see this with the gfx50s for a level playing field in resolution
Certainly the 'Medium Format' look is less pronounced on the smaller digital medium format sensors when compared to film, 6x7, 6x6 etc., but for me the big difference is the fact that my Hasselblad shoots in 16bit and not the 14bit of my Nikon.
The fact that I use both systems is testament to the fact that both systems have their strengths and both their weakness. It's a question of picking the right one for the job in hand.
I also think that to get the best out of the Hasselblad you need to use the Phocus software. Given that Hasselblad provide this free of charge means that there is no reason not to use it. The big down-side being that it adds an additional step in post production, a little frustrating if using the two systems on the same shoot.
Looking at how small the new Hasselblad lenses are, I hope that Hasselblad will try to make much faster glass in the future that is a little bit bigger. But before that, they need a faster and more accurate autofocus system. As for me, when I mentioned the medium format look I referred to the colors more than the depth of field. For some reason the colors transition (not sure how to explain this) but it's just better. Maybe it's the 16-bit, not sure.
Did you use a calibrated ICC profile for both sensors?
I love the idea of the Hasselblad, but it's impractical unless I was shooting product shots in the studio on a tripod. On the other hand, if I won the lottery, I would absolutely love to own one. Thanks for always pleasantly sharing your perspective!
I take your point, and I realise I dont know what you shoot - but the hasselblad is certainly not an in studio tripod camera only... Check out my full review and commentary on the IBIS.
How many years left before APSC and Full Frame to hard to innovate in sensor tech like M43 and everyone keep move and produce Medium Format cameras?
You convinced me to get the gfx
Matt, love your videos. Very professional, you explain everything great. You probably hear this from many other people but I will say it anyway, get yourself some good-looking girl to model for your videos and your videos will be watched by 10 times more people.
I moved from APS-C to full frame because I thought that my APS-C was not rendering color, ISO performance and depth of field as I wanted. Nowadays, I don't feel like I need more than my full frame offers. But maybe others would feel the need for something more, and large format will serve them better. In the comparisons, I found that the colors of the Hasselblad were more pleasing to my eyes, but that's a matter of taste, I think.
I'd agree Claudio. The colours were more pleasing on the Hasselblad, but not 5K more pleasing. I like you, moved from an APS-C to a fullframe (Canon 350D to Sony A7IV) and am very happy with the improved quality. Why do I look at the video, coz Matt!
@@peterlawson8563 Yes, not 5K better colors. But as Matt said, for some this may not be a prohibitive sum, so why not? In my case I went from the Canon 750D to the original R and I am really pleased with the overall image quality of the full frame. Also, I tend to think that a variety of glass (new and vintage) can deliver a bigger set of looks for our images, which makes the camera body less relevant. I'm not sure about the availability of glass for large format, but this can be a further constraint.
Hi Matt - love your videos. I'm a Fuji shooter on both APSC and crop MF (GFX50s) - previously Nikon on D850. I found the sweet spot was the GFX 50, having briefly owned a GFX 100. I keep the APSC Fujis for portability and video, but versus FF 35, the biggest advantage for me of the crop MF is the aspect ratio as I don't end up constantly cropping out the horizonal portion of the frame that I don't want or need. I love the physical look of the Hassy, but the reason I didn't keep the GFX 100 was the absence of real dials as opposed to scroll wheels. However, I absolutely love Hasselblad's colours - the best I've seen without any doubt.
Well, since I really shouldn’t upgrade to mirrorless as far as money is concerned, I would get the Z7 & use my F mount lenses. My move from the D810 would strictly be for a better AF, (wildlife) even though I could use the EVF bennies. Money no object, I’d get both. Clearly the colors/skin tones look better 100 mp should show more detail but, I wish you could have gotten in closer so the model would appear the same size in the photos shown. I always thought photogs moved up to medium for the files for post processing & large prints. I’ll have to watch your Hassy/Fiji comparison video.
I was thinking of a similar thing with getting the Nikon df and af-s glass that has smoother bokeh than the new z lenses
Medium format has better skin tones to me.
Huge difference in colour. The Hasselblad is so much nicer. It’s not that it’s warmer, the relationship of tones is just difference. Look at the wall and the different colours there - the Hasselblad separates the colours much much better. Better contrast between the colours.
Totally agree, although recently i got the Sigma 40mm f1.4 (to pair with the excellent sigma 28mm f1.4), and the tonal qualities on that lens is amazing (shooting on a sony a7rii), a different world, which opens up new possibilities. That lens is also meant to work well with medium format.
Perhaps it is because Hasselblad has control over all aspects of the color science, including 16bit depth, amazing lenses which they produce to match the camera, and of course their color science along with their own raw converter.
Using the same lenses on my Canon EF FF and my Fuji MF50s I, there is no comparison. On the Fuji MF the same lenses deliver tone and color that are both richer and smoother. FF looks almost posterized in comparison. Also nicer out of focus bokeh for some reason.
Good review, don't get me wrong. But I think that at this point this is starting to get pointless. I remember when D800 came out with 36mp and that resolution was crazy. More than enough. Now we are going over 50mp. Yeah, it's cool to have the ability to crop in post, but in practice idk. I think that instead of MP more interesting is to get more DR, color and better low light sensitivity. Yeah, MF look is cool and Hasselblad is legendary company, don't get me wrong. But for any photographer, getting modern full frame Canon/Nikon/Sony put's you into a better position than any photographer in the past and you are good for as long as the camera works.
You're right. And yet the progress of tech will march on. When the first car hit 100 horse power, it was over kill. So too was a 100MB hard drive or 1mb internet connections... Everything scales up over time.
The GFX 100S is kind of the best from both worlds. Everyone won’t agree what is the best camera, because what is the best camera for you might not be the best camera for me. And vice versa. One good thing in todays camera market, all cameras are really good. Medium format has an advantage in landscape photography and it is the longer focal lengths which makes mountains in the distance look more impressive. In normal photography focal length vs distance depending on sensor size compensates to status quo, but in landscape photography you are probably stuck on a beach or a cliff or whatever and cannot move so much. A focal length will always have the same physical impact on the picture, a 23mm will have the same effect on compression no matter what sensor you have, and to get the same angle of view you need an 18mm on fullframe and that lens will push the mountains away and make them smaller, and less impressive. You could do a panorama on fullframe with a longer focal length, that would be about the same result, except for the dynamic range of course. On sports and birds I do use fullframe.
Hello Matt. Very interesting and informative comparison! As a Nikon Z System landscape, product and macro photographer, I have been quite satisfied with the image sharpness and detail I obtain from the Nikon Z System (Z7, Z8 and several NIkkor S lenses). However, as I do on ocassion produce very large prints *30"x40" and up), I've always had an interest in medium format. So, in your opinion, do you feel that the X2D with, say, the Hasselblad 120/3.5 XCD Macro lens would give me a very substantial improvement in image quality (particularly image sharpness and detail rendition) in the large prints? Thank you sir!
I’d say most likely yes. I have a video with that combo that has download files you can check out.
@@mattgranger That's interesting indeed! I would like to check out those files, as I already downloaded Phocus. Thanks, Matt!
Right now I have the original X1D with some lenses. I will probably buy the x2D but I would really love to have eye focus and continues focus. I can do without video. Thanks Matt for your nice honest tests and I guess that's the main reason for you to not go for the Hassy is the lack of good autofocus and also video is missing. Well I hope that Hasselblad will come with some good firmware updates to adress the autofocus issues and maybe then you will extend your Nikon system with the Hassy x2d?
I don’t really care about video for this kind of camera for myself. I’m considering it but would love to see face detect and continuous. Even if basic
End of this year, i want to buy a new camera ore system. I am shooting now with a Nikon D3x and a old phase one medium format 36X36 mm
is the Hasselblad a real medium format? 80 megapixel back from Mamiya ore phase one IQ180 40,4 X 53.7mm and is cheaper.
Lenses are very imported. If you shoot the ZII white a Otus 85 1.4,
The detail while by better i think.
Fore 2 ore 3 years a go, Matt shoot with the D850 and the Otus 85 1.4
Can this combo stek op, against a medium format system?
Fore me, i think i go fore the IQ80, i have a medium body and lenses,..
but its a old system......
Yes, there is equivalent DOF, but as you point out there are limitations of optic design and physics. The light intensity traveling at f/1.2 is extremely difficult to control and correct. That f/1.2 is going to suffer from a lot more aberrations than an f/2.5 lens. There is no f/1.2 lens I know that will give you the performance and correction of an f/2.5 lens. There is more to a picture than just DOF equivalence. The other issue is distortion from a wide-angle lens. The face is not going to look the same with a 50mm lens as it will with a more telephoto 63mm lens. Now with that said these small crop MF sensors are much more subtle compared to larger side MF film and indeed the difference here is not that significant. The IQ, however, is still better with the larger sensor especially when it comes to the darkest shadows and brightest highlights and when you have to push ISO. I am not sure what the 100MP sensor can do but the older 50MP sensor was good to ISO 4500-5000 while the best FF sensors were around 3500 ISO. The first-generation high megapixel FF sensors were good to about 3000 and the newest generation FF sensors are getting close to 4000 ISO. You can't cheat physics. On the flip side of not being able to cheat physics those MF camera's will never be as fast to use or focus as FF cameras.
How many people these days buy cameras and lens over $10,000 and consider that pocket change? And do they take images worth the cost. Obviously, pros can write off some of the cost. Would make an interesting survey.
In terms of resolution, every year reviews of cameras have the same results. This or that digital camera is great and has great images. This has been going since digital cameras were invented. I have seen enlarged print images of full frame 2 mp SLRs and they were great. Even the images were great ten years ago, that means at normal viewing distances from the image, the picture quality was good enough for the human eye.
As an new X2D user coming from Nikon, my only concern for work is the black out time. Otherwise my flow is very similar to my Nikon flow: Only manual Zeiss lenses!
Enjoy!
Really depends on what you mean by quality? If by quality you were referring to megapixels, resolution etcetc, which are all tech aspects of digital image making, then yes the MF sensor is the answer. But, if you mean quality of aesthetics, craft and skill then I am afraid you are wasting your time, money and previous life. As Ansel Adams once commented, There is nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept.
Moral of the story is to... throw away digital cameras, shoot large format 8x10 plus and never below f16.....? Hehehe
So I need a 100+ MP Full frame camera and to use a very sharp f 1.2 lens and I should get really nice results :)
16 bit,180mp with 1.2 lens on full frame world match the 100mp gfx or z2d
Full frame can not making more photon Dynamic range with the same ISO and apurture when compare medium format sensor.
75% of taking good photos is the knowledge of the science and art of photography, subject, lighting, composition, planning and a little bit of luck, 15% post processing skills, and 10% gear as long as it meets minimum quality standards. Newer smartphone cameras exceed the minimums. I am not at any kind of a disadvantage with my D850 with an 85mm f/1.8 portrait lens. I cannot justify the extra cost.
Awe man, I missed the deal
Without making the RAW files available, all these comparisons have very little value.
Not fair lens comparison. Nikon has better matching 40mm f2 for $299 😂
some wedding phoographers use medium format cameras and they print albums in offset printer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahaha.
For me, it's less about the depth of field and more about the perspective you get with the lenses available for medium format. With 35mm, you can pretty much choose any subject to camera distance for the perspective you want and there's a lens that will give you the composition you want. For medium format... Not as many options. Unless you're willing to crop after the fact, you choose the subject distance that gives you the composition you want and get the perspective that you get for that given lens.
I’d like to see a M11 vs X2D video … 😉
A sensor comparison like this? Or just because they are similarly priced luxury options?
I shoot outdoors on the edges of the day so high ISO performance is paramount to me. I am looking forward to the Z6iii and hoping its autofocus is on par with the Z9.
Cool! I doubt the Z9 af will come 100% to the z6iii or z7iii, but let's see!
I can’t imagine shooting with a 4/3 rd camera.
Why not? Don't blame the equipment.
when I need resolution, I shoot 4x5 😂
Does the model Felicia have an instagram account?
Not currently :/ she lost hers.
Hi Matt, Unless your images are going to be on bill boards, sides of buildings or Vogue magazine, I cannot justify the cost of Medium format. 99% of photographers shoot for on-line publications or average size prints. You cannot tell the difference on an on-line jpg between 35 and medium formats.
I agree. Medium format is a specialized but niche camera. Now most of the media is consumer electronically. Even If I give my mom a Vogue magazine, she will not be able to tell if it was shot with an APSc camera or Medium format. I’ve shot images for billboards with a 12MP camera too. If you can afford it, go for it. But with cameras shooting over 60MP, medium format it not required In my opinion. Soo.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
you justify by actually having the freedoms to buy want you want...
Yes. How many iconic pictures have been taken with something like Canon 5dmk3 or Nikon D4s in the last 15 years? Or something like D700? I don't even want to mention film. So yeas, after certain amount of mp, there is no difference. Or the difference is that you have more picture to crop in post. That can be useful, but even for that you don't need Medium Format. Take any modern full frame Sony, Canon or Nikon and you are in better position than any photographer before.
Wrong we still use a Nikon D40 for billboards. Larger the print the less detail you need because you are viewing at further distance unless its going in a fine art gallery.
@@ronyedin well your logic is valid but you can use it for not wanting full frame camera in favour of apsc or even mft cams also as they can do everything that 80 percent of photographers will ever need
I'm an M43 shooter with no money so it is all academic. LOL
medium format win
I'm gonna stick with my Nikon Z9, Z7, D860 and Z6,
I also have this weird feeling Nikon is gonna make a MEDIUM FORMAT at some point. (
Yes I agree … Matt Irwin did a good video on exactly that concept and it looks very possible 🤞🏻
I would be very surprised if Nikon did that. Let's see!
If it happens, it will probably be the result of a Fujifilm merger or aquisition (of the camera division). I expect camera companies will need to consolidate over the next few years, and Fujifilm would fill out the APS-C and medium format areas for Nikon.
Please Use Sony A7RV + GM lens must defeat these all
The a7rv is an excellent camera - but the sensor doesn’t outperform these. Neither do most g master lenses
the biggest evidence here is how awful the skin tone rendering from adobe is with nikon files.
And hasselblad as well as the best option for x2d is phocus processed and exported from there to whatever software the user has learned to use. If not, there is always an interpolation that will lose original data from hasselblad's format. As easy as lightroom is to use, it does the worst initial job, even for my gfx 100s. So go figure .
I think it's really hard to compare with the white balance differences. Perhaps converting to monochrome would make it easier to compare.
Check out the raw files
La misma wea no más
Leica M11 ❤
You have to consider also the distortion difference between small and medium format
Medium format is just better in almost any way. I love the 4.3 format also. If i had the money i would never buy anything else than medium format.
so unfortunately another worthless "comparing different lenses" comparison to show something without showing it. sad crop-calculation-errors and resulting in completely different images - of course. Please repeat with really matching lenses.
try it vs Pentax k1ii, you'll be surprised...
😂
Unless you're making larger fine art prints or heavy cropping. No one needs anything more than 12mp. We still use a Nikon D40 for billboards. People need to stop with this BS.
So you dont give your customers the best possible image quality.. interesting. I would not hire someone who uses outdated gear. I want the best for the money not 2010 level.
@@castielvargastv7931 customers don't give a shit. They see the billboard from 20-50yds moron. Most are printed at 15dpi. So why would you need a photos thats 14ft x 48ft at 300dpi?
@@castielvargastv7931 billboards are printed at 15-30dpi max and roughly 6 stops of dynamic range...so your 100MP image would just get reduced in resolution anyway... That's like taking an F1 car to a K1 go-cart track :P
Not everything needs to be commercialized. Having the best possible image for oneself is value enough for me. It is a luxury I understand but the new iPhone is giving you good enough images on the go but for photo excursion and dedicated photo safari I won’t miss good gear. It is just so much more rewarding to see the phot later.
Wow. Why stop there. Aps 8mp is fine too.....
why wouldn't the model wear a little bit of make up and get rid now those pimples etc?
I asked her to come natural