The old real medium format was 6x6 cm (56 x 56 mm) and equipped with a standard lens of 80mm 2.8 it was very hard to get the same look on FF because you would need to use 35mm lens (and crop it to the square) and have aperture of 1.0 that generally does not exist for such a lens. Also, if you have FF with 35 1.4 and you want to get the same look in apsc you would need 23mm 0.9 that generally also doesn't exist. The thing is that medium format is now usually 44 x 33 and there are not many fast lenses, so in many cases FF have smaller DoF now. But if you use film 6x6 it's very difficult to replicate using FF.
We’ll said. And the old medium formats were generally still very sharp in the middle of the frame when the aperture was wide open. I think this ads to the “look” medium format is known for.
You are exactly right. This is why they were exclusively talking about the modern digital medium format size and arguing that the "magical look" simply isn't apparent in digital sensors
Agreed. This would have been a much better comparison if it was between a more proper medium format digital 53.4x40mm sensor, albeit modern ones are of course incredibly expensive
I suspect that part of the problem is while many of us recognize and apply the appropriate multiplication factor to focal length for comparison, we don't apply it to aperture. So we compare a crop sensor setup at f/2.8 to a full frame or medium format setup also at f/2.8. Of course then there is a difference.
Correct. Most reviewers don't get it right. Even worse, most phone manufacturers say something like "70mm f2.8 telephoto lens" which is absolute marketing BS.
Yeah, bigger sensor fanboys love to diss the equivalent apertures of smaller sensors but only compare DoF and images at same aperture instead of equivalent.
@@tntytube Not only the fan boys. I remember an add from Olympus, comparing the size of their new f2.8 telephoto lens to the size of another telephoto lens, FF and equivalent focal length but same f2.8 aperture. Obviously marketing BS. I hope no one believed that. In fact, several of my Fuji APS-C lenses are almost identical in size and weight to equivalent FF lenses. E.g. Fuji 56/1.2 to Nikon 85/1.8 and Fuji 50-140/2.8 to Sony 70-200/4.
@@craesh Well, technically it is a "70mm f/2.8", but they don't communicate what the 35mm equivalent is. Many camera manufactures do this on the lens focal length, for example Sony on their RX100 cameras, but not on the aperture. Probably because of marketing, as you said :)
i think it's just probably people wanting to be different, its the same reason someone likes fuji over canon, or canon over sony or sony over olympus etc. there all the same(i mean fun tionally obviously menus and specs are all different) half of all of the cameras sensors are made by a single company, i never care about such things, i grab whatever camera i have and could afford, it happens to be a canon 90D but it doesnt "need" to be, i picked it because it did the most things i wanted out of the other brands, in a few years when i want a new camera, if i find one within my budget and it happens to not be a canon, i'll buy that. (this weirdly isnt the same as with vintage SLR cameras for me, i do "like" canon SLR's more but it's probably some kind of human sentiment thing as the Canon A-1 SLR was my very first camera and for some reason i get warm and fuzzy about it (but i still have minolta, olympus and nikon SLR's)
From my experience the depth of field debate comes from the full framers about smaller sensor sizes. I don't often hear the debate from the APS-C users about Micro 4/3s or medium formatters about any other smaller sensor sizes.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 I can’t think of a single situation I would need a sub f1.2 lens on APS-C… I like more than just someone’s nostrils in focus 😂😂. Maybe it’s just me 🤷🏻♂️
@@ElementaryWatson-123 uh yes.. use them all the time.. and no you are completely wrong about ff equivalent of f1.6.. you do still have a crop but slightly less.. you are also open to a wider range of lenses where you can offset that crop if you really wanted.
I always assumed that the misconception about medium format DOF was due to people not understanding the changing focal lengths/stops between the various formats. One sure edge though to MF is the details and colors that can be resolved with those massive sensors. Great video!
The misconception isn't the math. It's that you require faster more expensive lenses the smaller the format is, to the point that they don't even exist. So with decent affordable lenses on a FF or Medium, you can accomplish things that are practically impossible in reality on a smaller format. To say that it is a myth because of a math formula, is really missing the point. If you want MORE depth of field, and don't need a fast lense or a handheld shot, no problem. But if you want a fast lense and a narrow depth of field, there IS a large advantage in larger formats. Equivilences be damned. Show me the wide variety of quality affordable sub f/1 lenses in the DX format. and we can discuss. Databyter
Conversely though FF has way more investment and engineering behind its products so usually you can't find a MF equivalent shallow DOF like you can in FF
If similar aperture lenses were available medium format would have a real advantage. But the fact that none of the lenses have more than an f2 aperture (and most are 2.8+) eliminates most of that advantage.
@@donschiffer7400 it's all about focal length, since bigger sensors can use super tight lenses with more flattering features apposed to a m43 that may need to use something very wide to get the same shot. Every time you move up you get more of the image at a give focal length, hence you can emulate a large format look by putting a matching tight mm but this can easily became a problem if shooting in small spaces. this means the only real advantage to moving up, if you know your equivalent math and know that all the magic is in focal length and aperture is sharpness. Are you gonna make people sized poster or magazines? Then you probably don't need something more than a full frame. But i must admit i itch to shoot an imax daddy camera
There's also the lens distortion advantage. That's why most films shot on VistaVision (full frame for movies) or 65mm (medium format for movies) look great. It's all because their 50mm lens looks like a 50 mm and the shapes look like that, but the field of view is wider than a 50mm in the usual Super 35 (APS-C equivalent that most movies use). That's an advantage that gives the creative the chance of showing more of the background to tell the story while not giving up the look of a 50mm which is close to how we see.
I’ve worked with medium and large formats over the years and I’ve said the same things as you did in this video. The problem is that someone comes up with their own opinion and if that person happens to be a “pro” photographer with a following on FB or RUclips, everyone watching is convinced that statement is gospel. The same things go for buzz words. Someone coins a phrase or keeps repeating a particular word, then everyone else follows suit. I’m tired of hearing about bokeh, micro contrast and other buzz words that make people think they know what they’re talking about. Would like to see you debunk these, too.
now we have mitakon speedmaster 50mm f0.95 which fits with an adapter on GFX , we also have Mitakon 85mm f1.2 which also fits on Medium format GFX and and 65mm f1.4 and we have Viltrox 28mm f1.4 , all fitting a GFX too. So, now medium format can give us f0.7 equivelant to FF ! while FF can go only up to f0.95
Much comes down to how easy a given focal length can be built to a given big aperture and then what field of view it has in a given format. An 85mm f1.4 is a real sweet spot on full-frame that can be bought cheaply to get a shallow depth of field that an APSC camera will need usually a very expensive lens to reach - a 56 f0.95 or so. Similarly, the Pentax 67 with its standard 105 f2.4 lens. You can make a 105 f2.5 cheaply. But a 50mm f1.1 or so on full-frame is not a cheap lens - at least until recently. So it's what people typically use that creates much of the impression of the differences. Pretty much anyone with a Pentax 67 will have that 105 f2.4 which will totally isolate a full body shot from the background. But such images are rare on 35mm and basically non-existent on APSC - even though they're achievable with all formats. What's really strange is the way you reviewers often don't change your language to reflect this - talking about a 56 f1.2 as a 'bokeh beast' or whatever on APSC while not giving the same enthusiasm to an 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
It’s funny that in every comparison video it’s always about shooting wide open and how there’s little difference in the images but no one does the other end of the spectrum. When shooting with my 645, especially dealing with strobes, I would routinely be at f/11 or higher. If working outside, f/16. Even at f/16 (needed for the exposure because my sync speed was set), medium format offers a decent focus fall off at portrait distances that you would not get with 35mm or APS-C sensors. The basic problem with your premise is that shutter speed and sensitivity are inconsequential
I think part of the implication here is that there are not widely available sub F2 lenses for Medium format that are as affordable or portable as there are on FF and APS-C. Realistically you will actually be able to get wider apertures more easily on the smaller sensors.
Depth of Field (DOF) can be the same DOF if one adjusts (e.g., physical distance to the objects, lens, aperture) accordingly with the given camera in hands. The real factor is the *physical size* of the object projection on the sensor. To a certain extent, the physically larger the size of the projection is, the better the image quality is. Medium format camera has a physically larger sensor, allowing a physically larger size of projection for the same composition, thus having a higher *upper limit* on image quality.
0:35 a fourth factor affecting depth of field is the focal plane. It is often not that important when you're photographing at a distance but it is much more important when doing macro photography, so I thought it deserves a mention... :)
there is a reason that product photographers use longer lenses with more subject distance to get more DOF. IF you don't care about how big your subject is in the frame then wide has more DOF.
@@johnrus7661 think about this like you are cropping an image. shoot a photo on medium format, say a Hasselblad with a 38 biogon or 40mm at f/8. at hyperfocal distance roughly everything from 5 feet to infinity will be in focus. a lot of DOF. now, crop an APSC section of the frame. the 40mm is now a slightly long lens for this cropped area, but the same things will be in focus. you don't change what's in focus by the crop. people confuse this i think because they are used to shooting landscapes with a 24mm lens where nothing is closer than 5 feet and then shooting a headshot portrait with a 100mm 3 feet from the subject with the background 20 feet behind and way OOF. yay bokeh balls.
The depth of field is governed by one formula: DOF = 2*u²*N*c/(f²) where * is multiplication. u is the distance to subject N is the f-number c is the circle of confusion and f is the focal length That's all you need to know.
The lens speed arms race is pretty much pointless. There are so many other factors that apply in actual real worl applications. The range of uses for f0.9 is pretty slim.
@@sulev111 hilariously saw this play out at a friend's wedding, two photographers showed up with Canon SLRs with one 50mm F1.2 each (and no other lenses). Kept shooting with frowny faces without flash way into the night under those old-timey dim light bulbs and delivered grainy, out of focus results, converted to Black and White to hide the Canon color noise. I would have been so mad if I was the client.
You totally missed the most important aspect in that discussion: Lens availability. In theory there is always an equivalent focal length and aperture. In practice however, only for mentioning one of many examples, you have no equivalent lens you can chose to use with either APS-C or MF to get the same look as an e.g. FF 85 1.2 (probably even f/1.4) .
And even then, doesn't the actual focal plane get smaller? Like even matching a FF 50mm 2.8 with a 35mm APS-C at 1.4 would look different because of the depth of the focal-plane itself. The bokeh/blur would be similar... but I'm pretty sure the FF would have a persons whole head in focus while the APS-C would only have the nose/eyes in focus leading to quite different look. People always give technical reasons why there is no "Large-format look" but there certainly is... it's easy to tell a movie was shot in medium format (65mm film-back). It looks WAY different than traditional s35 (APS-C).
When pictures are taken with the same quality of lenses and similar generation of sensors, obviously larger sensors are always better. THAT SAID, 35mm FF currently has way more great lenses than GFX does, so in the real world, I'd imagine that any low light and noise advantage of the GFX sensor is more than balanced out by FF having access to f/1.2 lenses and f/2.8 (or f/2) zoom lenses, whereas GFX only has f/1.7 for their brightest prime and f/4 zoom lenses.
Low light performance would scale to be the same since you shoot at equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture means same DoF and same low light performance.
These related to the tech of the sensor. Performance of different sensor of the same size varies from generation to generation, brand to brand. While DOF don't.
It's taken a very long time for APS-C noise levels to get closer to FF, but they have. Once you go past 3200, smaller sensors still struggle to compete.
Ooops...basic error in the beginning i am afraid..the angle of field (wide tele) has nothing to do with the depth of field. A 150 mm lens at 5.6 and focus distance wil have the same depth of field on a 6x6 format as on a 4"x5" inch or a 8"x10" inch format. It will work as a wide angle on the 8"x10" (provided that it will cover the whole format), as a standard on the 4"x5" and as a long focus on the 6x6, but the depth of field remains the same. A wide angle lens vs a long lens on the same format: the wide angle has more depth of field (at the same aperture) because it has a shorter focal length, not because it is a wide angle of view. Put a 50 mm wide angle Haselblad lens on a full frame (35) camera and what do you get? a standard angle of view with a standard deth of field.
Actually for all practical purposes angle of view does matter, a 150mm on an 8x10 will be a wide angle of view, the same focal length on 35mm camera will be telephoto, forcing you to move the camera, if you could move back far enough, then yes the depth of field would be the same but that’s not practical or in most shots, not possible. So the practical approach would be to use the equivalent wide angle lens like 24mm to get the same depth of field. Yes the 150mm lens may have the same depth of field in all formats but in practice you have to move the camera position to maintain that depth which doesn’t work in the real world.
@@DavidPattonPhotography Sure, you're right. I just mean that Chris (and a lot of other people) is mistaken when implying that angle of view and depth of field are related, certainly not with the subject of this video in mind.
One thing often overlooked is the photographers that use medium format professionally. When you start talking about systems that are in the high thousands or tens of thousands, you also (usually) have access to much more than just a camera. This could be lighting,models, locations, time, highly skilled collaborators, etc. that go in to making images that give that certain look.
Totally agree and points very well made. I have used all 3 types of sensor extensively and now settled on APS-C Fujifilm and Hasselblad MF [Had GFX cameras, don’t care for them much]. Unless you’re printing huge there really isn’t enough difference to justify almost anyone moving to MF. Where there is a BIG difference is when I’m shooting interiors, which makes up the majority of my work. When shooting a room at 16mm on APS-C or 30mm on MF for the same FOV the difference in scene compression/distortion is huge and very noticeable. Even noticeable over 24mm on FF, and that’s why I shoot MF. If I wasn’t doing high end interiors APS-C has so many advantages and why I still have an extensive set of APS-C kit. 99% of people don’t need anything else, in fact shooting MF is generally an absolute pain - huge files, huge heavy cameras/lenses, mostly need to shoot tripod (yes IBIS is fine, but MF lenses don’t have fast apertures so you’re generally shooting with slower shutter speeds, often beyond the usefulness of IBIS) - not to mention the cost!
This is exactly the comment I've been scrolling for. The "magic" of MF isn't the shallow depth of field. It's the FOV, compression, and lack of distortion.
I don't know if this means anything, but when I got my GFX, I was headed out to a real estate shoot. I was itching to test out my new camera, so I got it out and shot some side by side with my FF Nikon. I was immediately impressed how geometrically "correct" the image was in the viewfinder! Granted, I was shooting at 35, not very wide, but still, I saw a very different image than what I usually saw with my other gear. (FF and APS-C). Is that what your talking about as far as less distortion is concerned?
@@problemat1que The lens can definitely make a difference, a good lens produces less distortion for sure, but you can’t compare shooting with a 16mm to a 30mm lens (24mm in full-frame terms) and that’s the difference between shooting APS-C and MF to get the same file of view - the compression is totally different, it’s simple physics. Shoot a room with both side by side and it’s very clear.
While DOF can be adjusted by different lens/aperture ratio between formats, I think that the “mystical” difference can be in dynamic range and overall detail. And this might be also due to technological differences between sensors, where full frame and medium format might have been considered a premium and “pro” by the producing companies, thus having better technological advances
This is a great video that shows some similarities. One thing I always was taught was that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. If you stuck a 50mm lens on all three formats, it would be the exact same DOF. The difference is the coverage. Starting with the largest format, it would be wide angle. If you took a photo and then cropped the photo to the next smallest format, DOF would be identical, because nothing has changed. The difference is the angle of view. Crop it again to the smallest format, and DOF has not changed, but the angle of view has. The biggest factor to DOF is focal length. This is why an 8x10 camera with a 110mm lens would be extremely wide on that camera, but extremely tight on a full frame camera. On my 6x6 camera, an 80mm lens has the similar field of view as a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. The DOF is very different, because they are different focal lengths. In closing, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The DOF is the same on any format if it is focused the same distance. The difference is the field of view. Changing focal lengths changes DOF.
It may go without saying but you boys did a lot of work to produce this video study. Not that all your videos take a great deal of work, but this was downright teacher level scientific prep. Two thumb up.
My thoughts before I start watching the video is basically that if you take a portrait with a telephoto on apsc, you have to stand every far away bringing your subject into the wide dof zone, where as a telephoto on medium format allows you to get closer more effectively Separating the dof zones
I generally prefer more depth of field than less and I like that I get it with a faster aperature on my m4/3. Of course with full frame you can raise the iso with minimal noise penalty so it really comes down to know your partner and learn to dance with her. Oh and if you want really shallow depth of field with apsc or m 4/3's then your partners going to be expensive. (Fast glass)
Anytime I have ever had this argument with someone it has always been based on the same f stop, not equivalent f stop. I stick with my argument, you get more background blur with a medium format vs full frame or apsc
If you put a lens with the same size aperture on each format, you will get exactly the same depth of field. The largest format will have the widest field of view though, so to achieve the same framing, you need to move closer. Decreasing distance from subject is what makes the depth of field shallower in this case. Most of the time, people compare equivalent apertures because full frame cameras have the most fleshed out lens lineups. There are few lenses made for medium format or APS-C that match the shallow depth of field of certain lenses, like a 50mm f/0.95, 85mm f/1.2, 105mm f/1.4; all of which are unique to full frame. Sure, a 105mm f/1.4 on a medium format camera will have even shallower depth of field, but does that lens exist? No. So it's a moot point. For reference, I own a Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar. That's a 178mm f/2.5 lens on a 4x5" camera. So I personally don't really care about the "medium format look" cause I've got that "large format look"! Honestly though, I find DOF chasing fruitless. Merely having a shallow DOF isn't all that matters, there's also the quality of the OOF highlights, the transition from blurry to sharp, etc. Blah. Just shoot whatever and be happy.
Hello. thank you for your really precise and mathematically correct test, its very clear and well done. However, There is something not really fair on it, and is that you are comparing Full frame vs the aps-c of medium format. If you want to go fair you need to compare only aps-c medium format vs aps-c 35mm sensors. Or... at least a full 645 sensor vs full 35mm sensor. Said this. There are actual and noticeable diferences when you compare medium format (not even talking about 6x7 or bigger..) and smaller format. Actually you guys showed the difference at 6:58, where the 56mm shows all kinds of lens limitations and issues compared to a cleaner, softer and more perfect image on the 110mm. And this is, because the medium format lens is working more "relaxed": is a longer focal leght with smaller aperture, but has the advantage that is focusing at the same distance than the shorter focal lenght lens (so, even easier for the MF lens) So, what happens with even smaller formats? all is focus transitional zone + the inconveniences of super short focal lenght. if you added micro four thirds to the comparison the degradation would have bee even more noticeable. To me there is big misunderstanding about medium format and depth of field: Its not going to blur more, but its going to blur better. Its not going to make your subject pop more because its has less depth of field, But because it can cut out the subject in the same way as a telephoto lens does, but showing more image on the sides. Its not going to be clearer and sharper because the lens its better, but because the in-focus zone has "harder" boundaries making things go from super sharp to instant soft blur as transition zone is smaller. 1 sentence summary: Medium format is higher quality because it has the perfomance properties of a thelephoto lens combined with the field of view of a wider angle lens. The "misterious" medium format "look" is, and always was: "A wide angle telephoto image." And this is what is terribly hard for people to understand. They notice, but dont know exactly what is going on.
Yes. Especially your last paragraph. I was just reading one of Ansen Adams’ books wherein he states that image size (compression) remains the same for a given focal length, regardless of format. Field of view (crop and only crop) is what changes for a given focal length across different sensor/film format sizes. Therefore, the magic of the “wide angle telephoto” as you put it, is in the fact that all of a sudden you are shooting a 38mm lens, with all its lack of distortion and its greater compression than you expect, at the same field of view as a 21mm lens on 35mm/full frame. This is actually the reason that I have realized I feel too uncomfortable to use the 23mm Fujifilm lenses, whereas I much enjoy shooting a 35mm lens on 135 film. It haunted me for a long time why I just couldn’t get comfortable with either the 18 or 23 on APS-C cameras, and then it hit me: compression.
What your saying Chris makes a lot of sense. I'm a Fujifilm shooter and for me to achieve a Full frame DOF equivalent to 1.2f (which is readily available and can be found vintage) in crop-c that would be a 0.8f which is not only difficult for fuji to create in AF but gonna be bloody expensive. Bottom line, with the technology we have today the best and most affordable way to get the highest DOF is to use a full frame camera because there are so many fast FF lenses in the market what can beat the DOF produced by a 1.0f FF lens?
I agree with your points in the video... Within the range of available apertures and lens focal lengths, you can get an equivalent depth of field appearance. HOWEVER, there is a difference at the extremes, simply because of availability or practicality. For sake of comparison I'll use full stops to explain what I mean, although it may not be quite as exact in the real world... When you are seeking shallow depth of field and are able to achieve it with an f/2.8 telephoto on medium format, for the same on full frame you need a comparable focal length and f/2... Or, with APS-C you will need focal length with f1.4. Depending upon the focal lengths involved, such large apertures may not even be available for the full frame and APS-C cameras. It depends upon the system. For example I have an APS-C camera where the fastest available 23mm lens is f/1.4.. In full frame there are 35mm f/1.4 that will be able to render about one stop's worth of greater DoF blur. In medium format a 45mm lens is roughly equivalent focal length and depending upon system you may have f/2.8 or f/3.5 at best, which would be unable to match the effect of f/1.4 on full frame. There is one 45mm f/1.8 made, but only in limited mounts and it's a strictly manual focus lens. But what about longer focal lengths? Say you are shooting on full frame with a 135mm f/1.4 lens wide open. You wouldn't be able to replicate that with either APS-C or medium format because there is no equivalent lens. For APS-C you would need an 85mm f/1.0... And for medium format you'd need a 170mm f/2. No one makes either of those... There are 85mm f/1.2 lenses for some APS-C cameras... And in medium format the closest anyone offers is 150mm f/2.8 or 180mm f/3.5 in select systems. How about even more extreme telephoto, such as a 400mm f/2.8 on full frame? For APS-C you would need 300mm f/2... well, actually 280mm. Doesn't matter. No one makes one. It's the same with medium format... You'd need a 500mm f/4. Those are available for full frame, but not for medium format. It's similar stopped down to small aperture at the other extreme, but for different reasons. Diffraction is the concern and the larger the sensor format the more lenses can be stopped down before diffraction will have a significant effect on the end product. The reason is two-fold. One is that the image from the larger sensor needs less magnification to make any given size print, so any diffraction that occurs will be less problematic. But also because f/16 on a 12mm lens for APS-C is considerably smaller than f/16 on an 18mm full frame lens, which in turn is physically smaller than f/16 on a 23mm medium format lens. So, yes, it's true that it's possible to render similar DoF effects with all three sensor formats... Until you are working at the extremes of focal lengths and apertures. Then the different formats each have their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, it's always risky to simply say "multiply both focal length and aperture by the lens factor for the different focal lengths". While it's correct to multiply aperture for DoF effects, it is not correct for exposure purposes. If distance and focal lengths are equalized, f/2.8 for example will render more or less background blur depending upon format, but exposure parameters remain the same across all formats.
Just to add my 2 cents: M43 42.5mm f/1.2 = APC 57mm f/1.6 = 35mm 85mm f/2.4 = Medium Format 110mm f/3 ALL 4 SENSOR SIZES CAN GIVE PERFECTLY ADEQUATE DEPTH OF FIELD FOR PROFESSIONAL PORTRAITURE!
My 2 cents from experience for thoughts. With M43 42.5 1.2 on the same shutter speed you will need a lot less ISO than for example 35mm 85mm f2.4. You could say that full frame processes iso a lot better, yes, but the difference in ISO is usually greater than it's processing quality of different size sensors.
the cost of that 35mm lens is way cheaper than the m4/3 or DX and that is why I went back to FF from 4/3 and DX. Never owned a MF so don't know the prices of those lens but I know the bodies cost more than I have in my D3, D800, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 35mm F1.4, and 50mm F1.8 combined when bought slightly used. I have less than $4000 into all that and no MF body is < 4000 that I know of, much less any lenses. I use the 70-200 the most for my portraiture in my studio.
@@tomasrandom6430 No, the difference of required ISO directly reflects the difference in sensor size. Higher ISO means more noise but larger sensor captures more light and to get the resulting image you don't need to magnify the captured area as much. So ISO 200 on m4/3 is the same amount of photons as ISO 800 on full frame. But the catch is that you can have ISO 100 or even lower in full frame but you won't get ISO 25 on m4/3.
for me personally, it's about the look i am getting at a wider focal length with shallow DOF. APS-C to FF, because of the CROP (or the lack of), I can stand closer to the subject (i shoot mainly portrait) and get a shallower DOF because of camera-subject-background distance than I can with an APS-C system. The same is true Medium/Large format. So, like most of you guys said, it's not the technical aspect of the camera systems we are aftering, it's the perceived look that we can achieve with one system compared to the other.
There might not be a "magical look" for any format, but FF gives you equivalent aperture lenses that are impossible to buy with AF and good optics in APSC or MF.
I think you should focus on focal lengths relative to sensor size rather than apertures as it plays a bigger factor in blowing out the background. Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size, field of view does.
I love how veteran photographers still get this wrong! There are only TWO variables that affect depth of field DIRECTLY. Focal distance and aperture. Sensor size, focal length, and f-stop are all INDIRECT contributors. Here's the key factor that most don't know (which is sad) f-stop is the ratio between focal length and aperture. 100mm F/2 lens has an aperture of 50mm. A 50mm f/2 has an aperture of 25mm. Period. Larger sensors will provide shallower depth of field indirectly due to A, having to get closer to compose the subject similarly to a crop sensor at the same focal length or B, have a lens with a longer focal length, which at the same f-stop, will have a larger aperture. You're welcome for the free lesson.
PS, i only watched to 41 seconds cause it makes me angry. I understand what they are getting at though. Medium format doesn't have the lens selection to compete with full frame. But if the format did, this wouldn't be a debate.
As a massive fan of medium format on film....I completely agree with this. I like medium format film mainly because of the way the antique lens renders the bokeh and depth of field. But with modern lenses, I don't think it's the same. It's not the format that causes it, it just helps. Very well explained video.
How fast can Chris say a whole bunch of numbers? I feel as if I'm being sold a used car. The real depth-of-field myth that needs to be busted is the notion that less DOF is always better.
The myth that needs to be busted is the notion that there is right and wrong. Different things are used for different artistic expressions. There is no serious photographer who seriously thinks "less DOF is always better", so you're arguing a strawman. People use short DOF when it's the feeling they want, and their viewers like. Not because of some unwritten principle.
@@onegrapefruitlover I mean yes there definitely are people in all areas of arts that do a specific things purely for the principle. But it's not really a "myth" that needs to be argued against IMO. Those photographers will hopefully find different ways to make interesting photos eventually.
I started off in the 35mm world back in 1967 or thereabouts when I got interested in photography and eventually ended up in medium format. I tried many formats over the years and now spend most of my time shooting in APS C, Leica (Leica seems to have the colour coding in the digital world figured out right). I don't know if you are old enough to remember this but I spent many hours in darkrooms but medium format film was so much easier to look at than 35mm negatives. I could never understand people who shoot in a square format. I like to use every bit of film I have in my camera. I admire Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham and all those members of the F64 club but I don't remember ever having f64 on any of my lenses. I love f11. Most of my lenses seem to perform best at f11. And now we seem to be in a vertical format world with every cellphone with vertical format camera in it. A narrow point of view, in my opinion. Thank you. I love your videos.
I had a professor in college who basically summed up this whole debate as: “The capture plane size doesn’t effect your field of view or your aperture, but it forces you to make decisions that do.”
Only if you are carrying around a single lens. If you're carrying around an equivalent fov lens for your medium format and APS-C then you won't have to make any changes. The only case where you're "forced" to move your camera is when you for some reason only have a 50mm APS-C camera and a 50mm medium format camera. Then yeah uhhh sure I guess for the same framing you have to take pictures from different places. But that's a totally contrived situation. For most situations people have a case of primes at all common fov for their camera or a zoom. In which case you're back to there being no difference between formats except resolution or dynamic range or whatever differences happen to be in each sensor. But even then, the investment in FF sensors is so much larger that I imagine on average it's still a wash.
And yet, on the one side people are slamming M43, on the other side they are putting small aperture lenses on full frame cameras in order to get a small setup... I have a good friend who made fun of my OMD1III with the Panaleica 25 F1.4 while he was literally holding his A7III with the 50mm F2.8 Macro in his hands...
It's very hard to admit you've been duped by marketing to spend $2k on a body only to be camera poor and then attach sub-par lenses. I have a strong feeling your 25mm was optically superior to his pancake
Exactly. That's why it's so nice and unique to deal with the old medium format cameras, which, by the way, are currently rising in price again. One or the other photo enthusiast is bored by the ever more perfect and ever more similar cameras and thinks back to the "good old days". I have an old Bronica medium format camera. It is a great pleasure to work with it in a decelerated way and to achieve fantastic and unique results. Clear recommendation Greetings and thank you for the video
Chris is correct. I have no arguments at all with this presentation. I will say that it becomes easier to understand once you think about it visually, rather than purely mathematically. Once you think about it purely in terms of the truth: square inches on the sensor, you realize that the depth of field is really always the same, whether you mount the same lens on aps-c or full frame or medium format. The difference is ONLY in how narrow your field of view becomes on each sensor. For example, I recently purchased a Nikon 200mm f2 and have been swapping it between an aps-c Nikon z-fc and a Nikon Z5 (via the FTZ adapter). The depth of field is the same on both cameras... HOWEVER, to achieve the same compositional framing on the z-fc, I have to stand further back. Because I am further from my point of focus, then the apparent depth of field changes. Once I mount the lens to my full-frame Nikon Z5, I can achieve a more shallow depth of field, simply because I am able to step closer to my subject to achieve an identical composition. I am sure if I adapted this lens to a "super full frame" Fuji GFX with a 0.79 crop factor, I could, of course, step even closer because I would be getting more of the scene in front of me projected onto the larger sensor. The only thing that is really changing is the distance between the camera and subject. Of course, eventually all of this eventually becomes limited by the minimum focus distance of the lens--which, in my opinion, is the most underrated property of lenses for portraiture. Very few reviewers ever mention it, but the maximum magnification of a lens is very important for how much "bokeh" can be achieved--particularly when comparing two lenses of the same maximum aperture. The net effect of all of this is that I while the depth of field does not truly change, I feel more compositional freedom when using the full-frame Z5 vs. the aps-c Z-fc, simply because the compositions don't feel quite so "cramped" and I can more easily approach my minimum focus distance where the lens is at its best, while still including as much as possible within the framing of my chosen composition.
Yup, which is why I prefer m4/3. I learned a long time ago, that different formats can all achieve the same look. And m4/3 offers me the best performance per dollar and size.
The only major downside still to m4/3 is the iso noise and low light performance. For travel photography, m4/3 kicks absolute ass. I’m just so used to shooting at iso 12800 and having mostly usable images on my Eos R during event photography that I couldn’t see myself moving formats.
"that different formats can all achieve the same look" No they can't. They can if you limit them all to the same equivalent apertures. F1.2 on MFT is equivalent to f2.4 on FF, so if you make that comparison yes they achieve the same look. But if you take an F1.4 lens on FF, then MFT simply doesn't have anything that can achieve the same look. Your comment kinda proves that you didn't understand this video. Now before you say "I don't need FF or f1.4" (which is the answer I expect) that's not the point. You didn't present your personal opinion, you presented a fact-based statement that is false.
You can say all you want about different parameters that don't show much of a difference and are very similar between the different formats. in the real world, when you're out and about taking portraits, today's Fujifilm digital medium format has some magic going on making the images look way better! Way better I'm telling you! If it's tonality, dynamic range, whatever.. medium format image quality is just so much better!
@@nikoolix You can take that same f/1.4 lens and adapt it to m4/3 with a speed booster, and bam same look. Or you can get an f/0.95 lens and achieve it that way. But this is a corner case, the DoF we're talking about is more often than not too shallow. And those lenses are too big. I shot FF, and m4/3 lets me achieve the same exact look with quite a bit of advantages in cost and weight.
In fact for the same AOV the same aperture gives the same DOF, whatever the sensor size. However you need different f-numbers to get the same aperture. Remember, f-number is focal length divided by aperture. Confusing aperture and f-number are different things is OK in colloquial talk, but is what typically causes much of the confusion around equivalence.
I’m so glad you made this video! I’m so sick of hearing people saying “Love that Medium Format Look”. There is no Medium Format look. A 50mm f1.4 is the exact same regardless of which sensor size it’s used on. The only difference is that one can stand closer to the subject with larger sensors vs smaller sensors which allows the larger sensor to get shallower depth of field with the same field of view. But Fuji glass is too slow. Their f4 zooms are only f3.2 equivalent. They can’t even replicate the shallow depth of field as a FF f2.8. Not to mention, they are more expensive and have substantially less zoom range. Even Fuji’s primes are too slow with most being a f2 (f1.6 equiv) and one at f1.7 (1.4 equiv). Sony and Canon are already releasing f1.2 primes. I do believe the medium format sensor does deliver better ISO performance and more color depth, but one is going get a better “Medium Format Look” from a Full Frame system now days over Fuji’s offering.
It's also about the background magnification that comes with using those longer focal lengths. It will appear more out of focus because it's magnified (apparently often confused with having a shallower dof), but to Chris' point I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference on 44x33 vs. like 6x8 where a 300mm lens has the fov of a ~135mm on 35mm full frame.
I’ve put a Mamiya 80mm f1.9 (medium format lens) on my Sigma FP (full frame camera) with a focal reducer providing equivalency, and I can’t imagine a much shallower depth of field than what it provides. Pretty crazy unique images!
More articles like this please! Let's have Live models, good/bad lighting, more analysis of results, blind tests, and throw micro 4/3 into the mix too :)
Here is a simple math trick: Divide the focal length by the f-number. What you get is the size of the entrance pupil, the thing that gathers the light. You will see that it's the same for all compared lenses. The rest is parallax. The thing with your thumb jumping left and right if you open/close your eyes.
For me medium format is less about DOF and more about tonal gradations between light and shadows. Maybe that’s a myth too, or perhaps the MF photographers whose work I admire are just really good at lighting.
I guess if you can afford (and want to buy) a medium format camera, you're more likely to be good at photography and have more experience in that craft.
It’s very true. This “test” was designed to achieve a desired result. Yes, I can make an xt4 image “look like” a GFX image, but the quality of that image, resolution, ability to edit, shadow and highlight depth, will be significant different. It’s all the same on Instagram. Much different when you’re printing a large bridal portrait.
I think that the reason why people get so confused by this topic is they fail to distinguish clearly between f-stop and physical aperture size. In this video “aperture” is f-stop. The argument is actually much simpler if we think in terms of physical aperture size. For example, a 25mm f/1.4 and a 50 f/2.8 lens have the same physical aperture size and hence render the same depth of field.
I always thought of medium format having better light falloff, not focus. The dynamic range of the shadows to light is so much more gradual in medium format. I actually was teaching someone about this recently and they were able to, only knowing this, correctly identify blindly, full frame shots(from a Sony) vs Fuji medium format shots. because sharpness comes from the lens, colour comes from the sensor, and depth of field comes from the aperture and distance from the subject to the background. But the light gradient comes from the sensor size.(ofc this is being a tad reductive but you get the idea) it's about the only consistent thing I've noticed whenever people do sensor size comparisons.
If someone could tell the formats apart without checking details it must have been due to the different processing of the files, be that in the raw converter profiles, or manufacturer jpeg engine.
Just curious, is there a way to copy or get close to that medium format gradation in full frame or APS-C cameras? Adobe profiles in LR are relatively contrasty compared to a linear profile that you get with Capture One. There are free 3rd party linear profiles for LR (I have a site for that) and it allows the image to look flatter and smoother in terms of gradation of tones. One reason I ask is because that smooth gradation of tones might not make a large difference when an image is on Instagram (both because of compression and size) so I wonder how much of a difference it REALLY makes in the end.
@@vernonsza there is, you could do a stitch of several different photos taken from the same scene. you could do a pano stitch, or multi-bracketing. basically all you are doing is capturing multiple shots at various exposures, since the smaller sensors have less dynamic range than the medium format. there are actually many videos about getting the "medium/large format look" on smaller sensor cameras. and all of them revolve around this principle. in the end I think the difference is only significant if you are looking for it specifically. and that I think is the greater point that Chris wanted to make in this video.
Agreed. But I don't think these 'small' medium format cameras like the gfx have much (if any) of an advantage here. I'm sure one can pick the difference when you know what to look for, but there is not really a discernable look like one sees on the larger sensors. I follow the architectural photography world a bit and one can always immediately recognise work shot on these expensive systems. I also read an interview with someone (arch photog) who switched from Canon to the Fuji gfx for this purpose (adapting TS-E lenses) but switched back after some months because there was no perceivable benefits evident in the light fall-off which a lot of folks are chasing.
I think the problem here is the focus on depth of field differences. The real difference will be in compression. Why you ask? Optical Physics. The longer the lens, the more compression in the image you get, and this gives you a different "feel" to the images shot with different size systems.
Isn't the compression effect a result of distance from camera, not focal length? Of course, to get a substantial compression effect without a ridiculous crop resulting in a very low resolution image, you need to use a long focal length.
Dynamic range when shooting at equivalent apertures for the same DoF would be exactly the same (everything else equal - same sensor tech, same shutter speed).
@@tntytube I meant in general as people confuse the two. Theoretically, a bigger sensor would have an ability to have more tonal range but pixel size works into that as well. And the difference in sizes in digital probably isn’t significant enough to be a factor like in film.
Depth of field is not different from sensor size to another. The lens itself is giving the same depth of field. The sensor is "cropping in" to the lens to get the field of view but the aperture doesn't change. Sensor comes with other factors like lens selection, camera size, light gathering, etc.
Great video. Before I watched it I was worried it was going to be the old compression myth. Amazing how many professional landscape RUclipsrs still believe that stuff
compression, perspective and transition zones from focus and defocus is different for longer lenses. Simply explained - longer lens have more apparent (steep) transition zones from focus and defocus, perspective is different (objects appear flatter) and compression is different(object behind and front of the object appear larger). So :))).
@@veselingramatikov when the composition is the same with equivalent lenses, compression is the same. Convince yourself of that fact by watching "compression doesn't exist" on RUclips.
@@problemat1que not true. In the real world compression exist. You can rewatch the same video and agree that the author achieve same compression by take multiplie images or by other methods. Compression actually means that the background/foreground appear larger which flattens the fron/real plane of the image. Combined with perspective distortions (with telephoto lenses main object appear flatter) this makes overall look of the telephoto lenses vs wide angles. You can not replicate the look of telephoto lens with wider lens on the field. That matters more than any explanation that you can achieve same look with different lens. You cant with one image. Try to make 15mm lens to look like 500mm lens. Good luck with that.
A similar question pops up about film photography vs digital! There seems to be quite a number compelled by the way film captures the light and colour etc. I would be fascinated to see how much of it might be accredited to film photography and how much of it would be achievable through editing. Or is it just people falling in love with the process....?
While the calculations are correct, why hobble the larger sensors for the sake of the test, making them equivalent? When you have good lens that’s fast, shoot it wide open and enjoy it. It’s easy to find an 85mm f1.4 portrait lens for Fullframe, but that equates to about 56mm f0.96 on aps-c and there aren’t too many of those around, and that’s why fullframe is better, or more flexible for a shallow depth of field.
I shot a 135mm F5.6 large format portrait (35mm equivalent field of view) and it looked exactly like any old full frame image. It was a nice 4x5 film exposure with fine grain, but it was no more special than an equivalent APS-C portrait on a 23mm F2. I nitpick and I know all about lens and focal plane characteristics and none of it was anything more special. It was just a bigger negative.
Further to that, I've owned a Rolleiflex 2.8 for years, owned full frame, APS-C and smaller 1" cameras and there's little difference. What is different is the sensor's dynamic range, the lens' optical sharpness and bokeh characteristics. These make a bigger difference than anything related to format itself and there's not a great deal of correlation between format size and lens quality. High quality optics are available on most formats.
As a M4/3 shooter, my only problem is mostly not the depth of field, but the low light performance, and there is no alternative for something like a 50mm f1.8, or a 24mm f2.0 so in that case, much cheaper to invest into a full frame camera, insted of a fast m4/3 lense
I agree but one big point is missing : In the 2 mentioned examples, full frame would have easily won at the maximum aperture of the lens so full frame is the winner when it comes to shallow depth of field.
This video is awesome & it proves a great point. The point being that digital medium format is a money grab. You're not getting that 6X6 or 6X7 film medium format look. That Pentax & Mamiya medium format cameras give a very distinct & unique look. I dont think it's possible to get that look unless you use the Brenizer method in post. Also I recently ran into a gfx shooter while I was shooting some street photography & we sparked up a conversation. He was suffering from buyers remorse & was missing his XT3. He told me he fell into that hype of a bigger sensor equals better photos. I told him not to feel bad because these companies spend big bucks to make us feel like we need all these super expensive cameras & lenses. That's why I love you guys. Y'all dont hype the gear up like other youtube influencers. Keep up the great work guys.
Great episode! How about color accuracy and the gradation from light to dark areas? I am considering what my next camera should be. I’m choosing between a Fuji GFX 50s II, a Canon or Sony Full frame camera, and the new Fuji X series camera coming out in 2022. I currently have the XT3 and I love it. But, I’m tempted and just want to make an educated and thoroughly thought out decision.
Despite knowing that FF is the sweet spot technically, I currently use Fuji because I enjoy their colour rendition and user experience. If I were you I'd wait to see what Fuji comes out with, see how X-T5 performs.
Stay with Fuji man, their new 1.4 lenses is all you will ever need. The new 33 1.4 is just a hell of a lens. Plus colors in jpeg on Fuji are super nice. Plus plus look of the cameras. There's no match at Sony with X-Pro 3 or X100V
I've been wanting to switch to a camera with 16-bit color. (GFX 100, any Hasselblad)... A few months ago, I switched to DxO Photolab 5 Elite and it rendered my X-T{2, 3, 4) photos better than even Capture One. This made me think I don't need a new camera any time soon, as Photolab is bringing life to old photos. Also, I am looking forward to seeing what those new X Series sensors can do for me.
@@calokid nice to hear that software can you give me some examples of fujifilm shots of your in lowlight especially the new bodies before when I used the fujifilm camera especially the fujifilm X-T2 before I saw noise grain at 3200 and my limit to that camera is 3200 ISO and if I need to take a shot even with noise is 6400 ISO. But right now I don't know the noise performance of fujifilm x100V, XT-4 and newer models and I want also the result you edit from the software you use because I'm Capture One user from the time I use Fujifilm thanks in advance 😁📸👍
@@junichinomura4810 The low-light advantage of some of the newer X-Series cameras really has to do with IBIS. I've shot with the X-T2 and loved the sensor. Every X-Series camera I've used starts to get noticeable noise around 3200, so no real change. On an X-T4, however, I can shoot handheld as low as 1/15th of a second, others, with a steadier hand can shoot as low as 1/8th of a second. The advantage of IBIS photography would only apply to photography in which tripods do not apply. You could try Photolab yourself, and we could also decide on experiment criteria for exploring how low light looks on X-T4 or we could process one of your RAW files in different software to see the differences.
I watched this video multiple times, you can’t convince me that the aps-c sensors give a feeling of depth of field that isnt flat and the medium format pops in that category. Now full frame just has the best parts of medium format but medium just pops in a way that’s insanely easy to see and feel, and im a novice. I just can’t see aps-c touching the natural depth FF or medium format have
I will try to make it easier for a subset of photographers - wildlife photography As i am a hobbiist, i have 1 long lens for birding. I bought an old used d4, a slightly used d500 and for the extreme well lighted days a nikon 1 v2. Based on light etc, i switch the lens between the bodies. So same lens, same settings on the camera, and same distance, as there is a certain distance what birds tolerate. If you are closer, they go away. So only the camera changes all other factor is same. In this case you don't need to think anything all the pictures will be exactly the same, but different crop. Depth of field same. Only difference you going to see is the "goodness" of the given camera's sensor. So if you are in wildlife, just forget it as is. Use full frame if you can go close to the subject or light is bad, Use crop if you want profil photo, or you are a bit far, or the bird is small. And thats it. In places where puffins are coming like 1 meter close to you without any fear, i would for sure use highest megapixel medium format, but that is almost like a studio photo where you go full for resolution as you can set the distance as you will,
Thank you! I don't hear this emphasized enough. Forget depth of field, forget resolution, I want the perspective of a long lens with the field of view of a wide lens.
We need to talk about equivalent ISO too. Currently, you can get cleaner images on larger sensors (after adjusting the pixel count). E.g., shooting 50mm, F2.8, 1/60, ISO200 on FF is equivalent to shooting 35mm, F2, 1/60, ISO100 on APS-C. That's because full frame tends to be one stop better with noise. If light isn't an issue, you can use ISO100 on full frame and 1/120 which is an advantage for FF. Moreover, as others have mentioned, it will be hard to beat F1.2 on full frame with an APS-C for the same Bokeh, let alone with MFT.
@@djstuc no need to taylor anything. FF is one stop cleaner than APSC at any stop. And this advantage is most noticable at low light levels, where you can't weasle yourself around the fact that you need to use high ISO.
@@djstuc Actually, noise measurements are never exact. But this claim is the common interpretation of what is seen on test charts. You can have a look at the image comparison tool at DPReview to see yourself. My own experience is between MFT and FF, where two stops sound just right at a comparable 20MP count. You cannot compare a 100MP camera to a 24MP camera directly. You need to down-sample to compare. And, again, it is not exact. At least not as exact as comparing the DOF.
@@djstuc are you playing dumb or what? It goes without saying that we are comparing comparable things. Like current gen sensors of similar resolutions.
@@djstuc I just knew that you are a salty APSC user. No offence, but I shoot professionally a lot of protests, aome of which are in the evening or at night. I also used loads of different systems over the years: Nikon 1, mFT, APSC and Full frame. Full frame is where it is at, if you want ultimate capability w/o having to waste loads of time, with something like deep prime, to make high ISO photos look halfway descent.
@@djstuc Why would I punch my screen in rage? Use what you want. But the differences between FF and APSC are facts. Only people who dispute them are fanboys.
I hate to be one those people commenting BS on your video, but... You are total correct in saying that "Digital Medium" does not have a real "advantage" with DoF over APS-C. When you move to 6x9 and larger as a practical matter they do. If you use a f/2.8 lens on 6x9 you could get the same results with a f/1.2 on full frame. You can purchase f/1.2 but they are far from cheep. If you use a f/2.8 lens on a 4x5 then you would need f/0.8 which are very rare lens. I you moved to 8x10 you would need f/0.4 on a "full frame" camera. (Note: there are lenses which cover 8x10 at f/2.8 but they are again rare.) Another factor in DoF which you did not discuss is the size of the "print" being made. Hope this did not muddy the water on your very good presentation.
Well 6x9 cameras aren't cheap either. Plus you always kinda have to compare it in a timeframe. It's hard to compare a modern 50mm 1.2 to an old 6x9 lens. You can get a f1.2 on full frame for a few hundred bucks too they just aren't really great. Generally for 6x9 it seems like f3.5 is what you would get without breaking the bank. And you might want to stop down a tad on these older lenses. Plus film flatness plays a larger role in these 6x9 cameras. Plus these days many people talk about the "medium format look" when they talk about stuff like the GFX. They never tried to argue that you can't achieve something with a 8x10 camera that is hard to do with a 35mm one. Just that unless Fuji produces lenses with f1.2, the "digital medium format" DOF advantage isn't really real.
For me, the big appeal with medium format is the perspective distortion achieved by getting close, while still having a great field of view, adding great detail and colors. Like all of this working together in one image, sounds epic.
I actually grew up with relatively mild astigmatism for most of my life. Although it was a mild diagnosis it resulted in pretty severe nearsightedness in which I could very easily perceive things close and in front of me but I struggled to see detail in things that were more than a couple of feet away. It was something I just lived with and didn't recognize it as a problem until I was having issues at school and my mom took me to get my eyes checked. I have found that I just prefer the look of shallow depth of field because its what I grew up with. I associated warm and intimate feelings with things I could perceive to be in focus. While the background is an important element to photography, I feel like in many instances it is not necessary to see the totality of a scene tack sharp for an image to be good or convey strong and relatable feelings. This is coming from someone that prefers subject photography and city-scapes. To be frank, the only reason I have even considered medium format is because of the excellent color rendition of Fujifilm. I have been doing alot of research on Sony and Lumix respectively (Full Frame and MFT systems) and have not been able to find a workflow in which I wouldn't have to do tons of post processing in order to achieve the same color science that comes mostly built into fuji's jpegs and raws.
Most important factor in depth of field is final image size relative to viewing distance. Look at the same print from further away and the depth of field will be greater. Hence popularity of incredibly shallow depth of field when images are only viewed really small on Instagram. Same depth of field does not work for image to be viewed on phone and one to be viewed as 20" print (unless you view it from far away). So strangly this justifies fast, heavy, expensive glass just to post on Instagram. Having had fast lenses in the past I looked through my lightroom catalogue and discovered I more often ruined shots wide open than not so now shoot with an f4 zoom in FF and it is great. I guess on crop I'd need an f2.8. Generally fast glass is a fetish as it is no longer needed to compensate for slow films.
@@de-graftasafo-adjei4646 Edit of what I posted on that video: DPReview definitely triggered you didn't they! Depth of field is actually ZERO for all lenses and can only defined in practical terms by what an acceptable size for the circles of confusion on the sensor/film plane is (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) and that depends on the angle subtended at the eye of the *final image*. Literally all you have to do is look at a image with shallow depth of field on your monitor at a normal viewing distance and then look at it from the other side of the room and you will see that the depth of field appears to increase. Take a portrait where the ears are slightly out of focus as an example. From the other side of the room they will look in focus. In that case there is nothing to do with the camera at all :) I shoot 8x10 (and whole plate) and contact print them and they look great but I know if I were to enlarge them the depth of field would be way too shallow - unless the prints were viewed from far away (Father Ted reference). So does the 8x10 have shallower depth of field than my APS-C with an f/2 lens on it? Well it all depends on the print size! (also subject distance which is a biggie). It's so funny seeing people get wound up about this. Naughty boys at DPreview provoking everyone. I'm just stoking the flames.
One thing I struggle with on Micro Four Thirds is ISO, as you would expect with a smaller sensor. My f2.8 lenses are more like f5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field. However, since sensor technology is constantly changing and improving, I wonder how much further you can push the ISO on, say, a Sony a7 IV vs. my OM-D E-M1 Mark II and get similar noise levels. I usually think of two stops as a rule of thumb, but is that really the case? On my camera, I consider anything above ISO 6400 for emergencies only, and I wouldn't want to do much cropping above 1600. Unfortunately, I find myself reaching 3200 and 6400 more than I would like to when I'm shooting wildlife due to the fast shutter speeds.
I don't use M43 but use(d) FF, APSC, and 1". Crop factor works as you'd expect, and FF will look like the ISO is 1/4 of M43. That said, M43 has really, really good stabilization, so the difference will mostly appear with moving subjects.
My issue with M43 (I sold all my cameras and lenses (Lumix G9, etc.) was ISO, DR, and color noise, but mostly pixel density. The size of the G9 M43 sensor and the density of its pixels gives M43 a more digital look (less organic). This is also seen in some newer APC-S and FF cameras. Even though some look for pixel perfection, for me it was almost resembling iPhone quality. Raws were like artificially sharpened and I could easily tell the size of sensor by the look of the images.
@@borispradel1037 but can u imagine 10 years down the road when gh9 comes what can happen? Iso performance will be atleast twice or thrice better. And computational photography technology is expected to come to m43 before apsc due to smaller size.
@@josh_boak yup 12800 ISO is the usable for lowlight scenario in emergency use also for colored photographs of any fullframe camera bodies right now 👍😁📸
Actually - there is a difference (although, most people will not care too much - but for my shooting, it is important to get a certain look). It's about the depth of field you can get at a specific distance with a specific focal length. That's what can make medium format images look "special" or maybe the real word is "different". Everything else is correct for the general case, it's just that there are situations where it is not possible to frame a subject at a specific distance and get the same fall off. For example, it can be very difficult to get a wide angle full bodied portrait with shallow depth of field on an APS-C camera, without either long zooms or exotic lenses - but even then, it's not the same look because you don't get the same distortion characteristics. The thing is - a 24mm f1.4 IS a 24m f1.4 no matter what the sensor size. It doesn't change. But obviously the framing will be different at the same distance. So that's where the FOV and DOF equivalency comes in - you need to change the distance to the subject to get the same framing, and therefore DOF necessarily looks like it is different when on different sensor sizes.
This is only applicable in the context of shooting on native lenses to each system. The beauty of mirrorless is having the ability to adapt. 44x33 is actually a great compromise because in many cases you can still get full (or close to full) sensor coverage with FF lenses. Pairing digital medium format with those larger apertures gives an insane amount of compression. The biggest advantage is compression at wider focal lengths. This also doesn’t take into account natural dynamic range and detail retention in post processing.
compression comes from camera distance, not the lens. the lens limits fov, as does the sensor, so moving to medium format gives you more fov within the same focal length, but doesn't do anything to perspective.
The interesting thing comes in that to get equivalent depth of field we end up with different apertures, so you can shoot medium format in daytime at a desired depth of field and be less likely to blow out highlights as the aperture will be more closed down to achieve it than apsc. Also, at night, we can gather more light on apsc without being restricted by razor thin depth of field that we would have on a larger format at the same aperture.
At night, you would just shoot a full frame camera with a narrower aperture and higher ISO if you don't want so thin depth of field. The better sensor performance would mean it's no sacrifice. But you do have the *option* of a faster aperture equivalent, letting you get better low-light noise performance or faster shutter speeds. There's no way to spin APS-C as an advantage in low light.
Depth of field is only really influenced by focus distance and aperture diameter in mm. Exposure is influenced by the focal ratio, otherwise known as F-stops. Interestingly, focal length directly impacts exposure, requiring a larger aperture to maintain the same F-stop. In the case of larger formats, longer focal lengths are used to achieve the same field of view as smaller formats. These longer focal lengths reduces exposure, so to maintain exposure, you use a larger diameter aperture. This brings exposure back to parity, and reduce depth of field. I’d probably consider both APS-C and FF to be kind of the sweet spots for photographers. Sensor advancements allow shooting at darker F-stops at night, while the availability of very fast lenses for both systems allows for extensive flexibility.
In theory, there is no DOF difference between the sensor formats. In practice, if you want a shallower DOF, you need to go FF because it has the lenses which offer a much shallower DOF.
LOVE that you guys covered this, and love that you did it in an easy-to-understand way. People get so hung up on the MF look or in the film world the LF look and they are really usually only talking about equivalent f stop. And really, even in film sizes, most fall within the "f/1.2" 35mm equiv as their shallowest lens. I choose FF over APS-C really only for cost of lens for a given aperture. I can easily buy an f/1.4 or f/1.8 50mm in FF for peanuts compared to the f/1 or f/1.2 APS-C lens and it will usually be smaller. I choose APS-C when I want an overall smaller system. I think the bigger issue that I know you weren't covering here is tonal range for a given sensor size...how important is it in these digital sensors that aren't really physically much different? Is that where a Foveon or Monochrome only sensor has an advantage? Why does the Foveon APS-C and M10 Monochrom seem to shoot above their sensor size?
Also flash sync speeds had a part to play. When shutter were slower larger formats offered a shallow depth of field you couldn’t get when using a 35mm camera. Now we have high speed sync to help achieve that.
Great video! Thumbs up for the effort Put in! Thank you! in my opinion, in the real world, when you're out and about taking portraits, today's Fujifilm digital medium format have some magic going on making the images look way better! Way better I'm telling you! If it's tonality, dynamic range, iso.. whatever.. I just wish Fujifilm had Sony/canon level auto focus and video features.
Something I noticed pretty straight away when I started with a Nikon D3300 several years back, some companies are much better at supporting the APSC format than others. Fuji ofcourse knocks it out of the park, while I think Nikon and Canon string you along with some decent APSC lenses here and there, hoping you will 'upgrade' to full frame. If you do your research and want to commit to a smaller/lighter kit, it's very much worthwhile researching what APSC-specific lenses said company offers first. Thankfully many third parties fill the APSC-starved gaps of Nikon and Canon on the DSLR side. Things are rolling out a little more slowly with the RF and Z mount. Here's hoping we see more quality 3rd party autofocus lenses make their way to those mounts in the coming years.
On full frame 35mm lens, you would get a 35mm field of view with a 35mm compression (because it is a 35mm lens). Take an equivalent field of view lens on a medium format (55mm lens in medium format world) and what you now have is the 35mm field of view of a full frame, but with a 55mm compression because it is a 55mm lens. Now when you compare the two, you have: Full frame 35mm - 35 field of view, 35 compression Medium format 55mm - 35 field of view, 55 compression Longer focal lengths are always going to give you shallower depth of field so that is the magic of medium format. You are able to shoot wider than full frame and get more separation dude to compression. This point was completely missed in this video.
Lens compression isn't real, it's completely dependent on your distance from the subject. You can test this with a zoom lens on a tripod and take pictures of a static subject at different focal lengths, and crop to match the framing.
@@SquirrelHybrid no disrespect but you are completely wrong haha. 28mm will never look like 50 on a full frame (or any sensor size for that matter) no matter how many steps you take. The wider you go, the more distortion. The longer you go, the more compression. Wider will push the background away (why you should real estate interiors and it’s them) and telephotos will pull the background elements closer. Basic photography techniques.
@@andrewgardelle516 telephotos will pull the background closer only for the fact that you will make some step back from the subject... not for the focal length itself The "compression" will vary with the distance from the subject not with focal length "alone". As said... If you take a static subject and and you take a photo with a 100mm and then you change the lens with a 28mm cropping the image to have the same field of view... the 2 images will be the same.
Because it's not 6x6 (or 6x7) film... it's much smaller. That being said, you're now paying $1/click for Portra 400 on 120 if you're shooting 6x6, even more if you're shooting 6x7. It's not at all economical for hobbyists. I can print Instax cheaper than that.
I feel like this video kinda proved the opposite. It's a situation where a standard medium format lens gets you this baseline depth of field but meanwhile on the APSC you have to blow a bunch of money on their very high end super wide aperture lenses to try and replicate the DoF benefits of a larger sensor. I'm not a "gear matters" kind of person with gear acquisition syndrome or anything but when you have to make the other cameras work a Lil harder to replicate something that the other one does naturally, the natural one seems the winner?
Yeah but what about the cost of the medium format bodies? Doesn't really seem like you are saving a lot of money by going with that option, if any at all.
@@alexbustamante6532 yeah i thought about that too, but that also depends on the body you're getting. Fuji GFX 50R retails 4.5k USD, almost always on sale for 3.5 or even 3k. My A7RIV retails 3.5 as well, so it's effectively the same cost. Only time cost really becomes a factor i feel is if you're genuinely debating an APSC vs Full Frame vs Medium Format, but depending on the body, your price range between FF and MF is negligible
The 56mm is $1000, the Sony $1600, the 110mm is $2200. In APS-C you can go up to 50 F1 at $1500 (not coincidentally similar to the Sony) or down to 50 F2 at $450, making it a very flexible system for both size and price.
@@problemat1que yeah if we're using the price argument obviously APSC is far superior at being cost effective but the video isn't as much focused on the price end, moreso focused on the final image. Obviously price matters, it's just a secondary subject here
There is indeed a difference if you take for example a X1D and a full frame lens like a 50mm 0.95 with large enough coverage for those medium-ish format digital sensors.
The logic of the test is strange in my opinion: "let we adjust the aperture for the medium format camera so it has the same depth of field as an APS-C camera. Now you see, it has the same depth of field!" )) Basically the medium format makes it easier to make shallower depth of field lenses. GF 110mm f/2.0 is equivalent in terms of depth of field to a 55mm f/1.0 on an APS-C camera. And the latter lens will be definitely inferior in terms of quality wide open. And GF 80mm f/1.7 simply doesn't have any equivalent in the XF world. Let alone zoom lenses. And this difference is even more pronounced if you compare larger film formats to a "full frame". Basic f/3.5 lens for 6x9 will produce the same depth of field as f/0.75 on an APS-C camera.
Whenever I hear arguments like this video, the diminishing returns you suffer trying to match the “medium format look” with anything but is never addressed, especially in the comment section. This is the first I’ve seen addressing just that.
@@kapapa3764 yes we do. And in fairness Fuji GFX (and any other relatively affordable "medium format") is not so much of a "medium format" if compared to FF.
The benefits with larger format are more resolution possible which are great for fx Landscape Photography with wide angle Lenses so you get the most out of the details, I think it is easier to make a good wide angle Lens for larger format than for smaller format Cameras.
Thank you for illustrating this important point! For 99 pct of consumers going the apsc route will provide more detail than they need and they can then invest the money they saved (by not buying a full frame body/lenses) in the very best apsc glass that will give them exactly the same DOF and bokeh as full frame. As this video shows, the results will be exactly the same as long as you calculate equivalency right.
There are 35mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2, and 85mm f1.2 lenses for FF, all with AF, for which there is no APS-C equivalent. You would need a 23mm f0.8, a 33mm f0.8 and a 56mm f0.8, again with AF. They don't exist on APS-C, so, no, it's not possible to get the "very best apsc glass"to get exactly the same DOF and bokeh as full frame. That's the problem.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube Yes, I am assuming that almost all consumers do not need anything wider than a 1.8 or even 2 FF aperture. Good 1.2 FF glass is huge and costly and very few consumers buys or needs it. Professional use is a different game. Depending on their needs FF and medium format can totally be necessary.
Hi Chris. You are talking about background blur which may vary but depth of field remains equal at any given aperture regardless of sensor size. I love this channel and have been following you guys since camera store
Moving from my a6400 to the new A7IV was pretty ridiculous. First of all there is only F1.4 lenses available for the 6400, but there’s also f1.4 lenses available for the A7IV. So as long as you have the fastest lenses for both, there’s a pretty dramatic difference. But even Winset to a very similar depth of field, the full frame camera definitely has a “thing“… It’s absolutely different in my humble opinion. I have no experience with medium format though, although I would have to imagine that same intangible applies
its cause you get more image at any focal length when you move up sensor size, and focal length is where the compression of field of view and bokeh are imprinted here, with bigger sensors you can use tighter and tighter focal lengths, which also happen to be more flattering on people. So you can use a 35 where you might have had to use a 18 do to size of environment and that can be life changing
@@nikoolix 3d lens are wild but nah, i just mean focal length compression, shoot someone at 18 or wide and then again something like 85 and you can see clearly one is more flattering because that specific mm handles field of view/ compression a specific way to achieve the right mm. The bigger sensor also gets more of the image on the same mm because its just bigger than the aps-c sensor, so on the same mm you may be accustomed to you know get more image to compose on the newer camera.
@@VirisNS Wrong, what you call "compression" is entirely a factor of field of view (and its implications for subject distance), not focal length. Try taking a headshot with a telephoto and then from the same location take another with an ultra-wide, then crop the ultra-wide to the same fov as the telephoto and you will see that the perspective distortion of the facial features is the same.
@@Bayonet1809 i disagree completely. wide angles lenses are known to "bend" walls and straight lines. This affect is on everything including faces. Wide angles lenses give a fuller and different image to a telephoto. Whether you prefer it or not artistically is up to you but to say it does not exits is wrong on your behalf. Different focal lengths do compress the real world depending on the mm, if they all compressed the same there would be no different mm's cause it all be the same. Field of view is the result, compression is how you get there.
While this was great and illustrative, I do think two components are missing. The first is framing. Every focal length has front to back distortion which is rarely talked about. On wider focal lengths this is exaggerated and can result in keystoning straight lines while on telephoto lengths this results in compression. The longer the focal length length, the more compression. Something that a larger sensor like medium format gives you is the ability to shoot a longer focal length with a shorter distance from the subject allowing for wider framing on a more compressed shot. A 70mm lens has the same front to back distortion regardless of what sensor the lens housing is designed for. If manufactured correctly, it will produce the same DOF per F-stop independent of sensor size However a 70mm is much wider on a medium format camera than an apsc camera so if you want the same framing with the same focal length, the subject has to be much farther from the camera resulting in a wider DOF. One solution is to do what was shown in the video which is change both the focal length and the F-stop and you can achieve similar results. Sometimes though, the front to back distortion changes enough that it is a problem depending on what you are shooting and how you want to shoot it. The second issue is more of a tech one... Medium format has more bit depth and sometimes this shows up in bokeh. 16bit often just has smoother transitions. Could they put 16bit in smaller cameras? Yes but it isn't as common. For most people the price isn't worth the slight change but for some it is and that is why MF sells today.
![Is Full Frame Better Than APS-C? Here's The [Annoying] Truth...](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tOx3Y52EPNI/mqdefault.jpg)
The old real medium format was 6x6 cm (56 x 56 mm) and equipped with a standard lens of 80mm 2.8 it was very hard to get the same look on FF because you would need to use 35mm lens (and crop it to the square) and have aperture of 1.0 that generally does not exist for such a lens.
Also, if you have FF with 35 1.4 and you want to get the same look in apsc you would need 23mm 0.9 that generally also doesn't exist.
The thing is that medium format is now usually 44 x 33 and there are not many fast lenses, so in many cases FF have smaller DoF now. But if you use film 6x6 it's very difficult to replicate using FF.
We’ll said. And the old medium formats were generally still very sharp in the middle of the frame when the aperture was wide open. I think this ads to the “look” medium format is known for.
You are exactly right. This is why they were exclusively talking about the modern digital medium format size and arguing that the "magical look" simply isn't apparent in digital sensors
Agreed. This would have been a much better comparison if it was between a more proper medium format digital 53.4x40mm sensor, albeit modern ones are of course incredibly expensive
Yes!!! My absolute favorite format was 6x7, and boy was that "look" special.
but now FF has 35mm/f0.95 and other f/0.95 lenses, so... no difference
I love how optimistic Chris sounded about the comment section
I've since changed my mind.
I suspect that part of the problem is while many of us recognize and apply the appropriate multiplication factor to focal length for comparison, we don't apply it to aperture. So we compare a crop sensor setup at f/2.8 to a full frame or medium format setup also at f/2.8. Of course then there is a difference.
Correct. Most reviewers don't get it right. Even worse, most phone manufacturers say something like "70mm f2.8 telephoto lens" which is absolute marketing BS.
Yeah, bigger sensor fanboys love to diss the equivalent apertures of smaller sensors but only compare DoF and images at same aperture instead of equivalent.
@@tntytube Not only the fan boys. I remember an add from Olympus, comparing the size of their new f2.8 telephoto lens to the size of another telephoto lens, FF and equivalent focal length but same f2.8 aperture. Obviously marketing BS. I hope no one believed that.
In fact, several of my Fuji APS-C lenses are almost identical in size and weight to equivalent FF lenses. E.g. Fuji 56/1.2 to Nikon 85/1.8 and Fuji 50-140/2.8 to Sony 70-200/4.
@@craesh Well, technically it is a "70mm f/2.8", but they don't communicate what the 35mm equivalent is. Many camera manufactures do this on the lens focal length, for example Sony on their RX100 cameras, but not on the aperture. Probably because of marketing, as you said :)
i think it's just probably people wanting to be different, its the same reason someone likes fuji over canon, or canon over sony or sony over olympus etc. there all the same(i mean fun tionally obviously menus and specs are all different) half of all of the cameras sensors are made by a single company, i never care about such things, i grab whatever camera i have and could afford, it happens to be a canon 90D but it doesnt "need" to be, i picked it because it did the most things i wanted out of the other brands, in a few years when i want a new camera, if i find one within my budget and it happens to not be a canon, i'll buy that. (this weirdly isnt the same as with vintage SLR cameras for me, i do "like" canon SLR's more but it's probably some kind of human sentiment thing as the Canon A-1 SLR was my very first camera and for some reason i get warm and fuzzy about it (but i still have minolta, olympus and nikon SLR's)
From my experience the depth of field debate comes from the full framers about smaller sensor sizes. I don't often hear the debate from the APS-C users about Micro 4/3s or medium formatters about any other smaller sensor sizes.
Tilt-shift lenses give you any depth of field you want.
You can also get speed boosters..
@@ABUSHfan do speed boosters give you a more out of focus background or do they just let more light into the sensor?
@@ElementaryWatson-123 I can’t think of a single situation I would need a sub f1.2 lens on APS-C… I like more than just someone’s nostrils in focus 😂😂. Maybe it’s just me 🤷🏻♂️
@@ElementaryWatson-123 uh yes.. use them all the time.. and no you are completely wrong about ff equivalent of f1.6.. you do still have a crop but slightly less.. you are also open to a wider range of lenses where you can offset that crop if you really wanted.
I always assumed that the misconception about medium format DOF was due to people not understanding the changing focal lengths/stops between the various formats. One sure edge though to MF is the details and colors that can be resolved with those massive sensors. Great video!
The misconception isn't the math. It's that you require faster more expensive lenses the smaller the format is, to the point that they don't even exist. So with decent affordable lenses on a FF or Medium, you can accomplish things that are practically impossible in reality on a smaller format. To say that it is a myth because of a math formula, is really missing the point. If you want MORE depth of field, and don't need a fast lense or a handheld shot, no problem. But if you want a fast lense and a narrow depth of field, there IS a large advantage in larger formats. Equivilences be damned. Show me the wide variety of quality affordable sub f/1 lenses in the DX format. and we can discuss. Databyter
@@DatabyterI agree that for shallow depth of field, MF and FF have an advantage over APSC and smaller, but I don't see an advantage of MF over FF.
Conversely though FF has way more investment and engineering behind its products so usually you can't find a MF equivalent shallow DOF like you can in FF
If similar aperture lenses were available medium format would have a real advantage. But the fact that none of the lenses have more than an f2 aperture (and most are 2.8+) eliminates most of that advantage.
You'd have to have a f1.2 GFX lens to be equivalent to a f0.95 35mm full frame, which is miles away from f2. Safe to say- it's not happening...
@@10msplits I agree. I think at this point medium format is a marketing exercise.
@@donschiffer7400 it's all about focal length, since bigger sensors can use super tight lenses with more flattering features apposed to a m43 that may need to use something very wide to get the same shot. Every time you move up you get more of the image at a give focal length, hence you can emulate a large format look by putting a matching tight mm but this can easily became a problem if shooting in small spaces. this means the only real advantage to moving up, if you know your equivalent math and know that all the magic is in focal length and aperture is sharpness. Are you gonna make people sized poster or magazines? Then you probably don't need something more than a full frame. But i must admit i itch to shoot an imax daddy camera
@@10msplits you can adapt a canon 50mm f1.2 for example this makes medium format the way we all want
There's also the lens distortion advantage. That's why most films shot on VistaVision (full frame for movies) or 65mm (medium format for movies) look great. It's all because their 50mm lens looks like a 50 mm and the shapes look like that, but the field of view is wider than a 50mm in the usual Super 35 (APS-C equivalent that most movies use). That's an advantage that gives the creative the chance of showing more of the background to tell the story while not giving up the look of a 50mm which is close to how we see.
I’ve worked with medium and large formats over the years and I’ve said the same things as you did in this video. The problem is that someone comes up with their own opinion and if that person happens to be a “pro” photographer with a following on FB or RUclips, everyone watching is convinced that statement is gospel. The same things go for buzz words. Someone coins a phrase or keeps repeating a particular word, then everyone else follows suit. I’m tired of hearing about bokeh, micro contrast and other buzz words that make people think they know what they’re talking about. Would like to see you debunk these, too.
Or "pop" in Leica circles.
What about perspective?
The tes is even flawed. Here is the proof ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
now we have mitakon speedmaster 50mm f0.95 which fits with an adapter on GFX , we also have Mitakon 85mm f1.2 which also fits on Medium format GFX and and 65mm f1.4 and we have Viltrox 28mm f1.4 , all fitting a GFX too. So, now medium format can give us f0.7 equivelant to FF ! while FF can go only up to f0.95
Much comes down to how easy a given focal length can be built to a given big aperture and then what field of view it has in a given format. An 85mm f1.4 is a real sweet spot on full-frame that can be bought cheaply to get a shallow depth of field that an APSC camera will need usually a very expensive lens to reach - a 56 f0.95 or so. Similarly, the Pentax 67 with its standard 105 f2.4 lens. You can make a 105 f2.5 cheaply. But a 50mm f1.1 or so on full-frame is not a cheap lens - at least until recently.
So it's what people typically use that creates much of the impression of the differences. Pretty much anyone with a Pentax 67 will have that 105 f2.4 which will totally isolate a full body shot from the background. But such images are rare on 35mm and basically non-existent on APSC - even though they're achievable with all formats.
What's really strange is the way you reviewers often don't change your language to reflect this - talking about a 56 f1.2 as a 'bokeh beast' or whatever on APSC while not giving the same enthusiasm to an 85mm f1.8 on full frame.
It’s funny that in every comparison video it’s always about shooting wide open and how there’s little difference in the images but no one does the other end of the spectrum. When shooting with my 645, especially dealing with strobes, I would routinely be at f/11 or higher. If working outside, f/16. Even at f/16 (needed for the exposure because my sync speed was set), medium format offers a decent focus fall off at portrait distances that you would not get with 35mm or APS-C sensors. The basic problem with your premise is that shutter speed and sensitivity are inconsequential
Dont agree, the test is flawed and here is why ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
How about showing the fastest lens available for each and seeing the difference? Lens potential is also important
So f/2 on MF vs. f/1.2 on FF?
@@shang-hsienyang1284 An f/1.7 MF lens exists. Fuji's 80mm.
I think part of the implication here is that there are not widely available sub F2 lenses for Medium format that are as affordable or portable as there are on FF and APS-C. Realistically you will actually be able to get wider apertures more easily on the smaller sensors.
f2 is not fast enough on GFX to equal anything on full frame 35mm. It would need to be f1.2 to get f0.948 equivalent, and no lens exists for this.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 vs. F1.4 on FF using the 0.8x factor (36/44).
Would have liked to see this comparison done with portraits relative to background falloff, not just blurry backgrounds.
Depth of Field (DOF) can be the same DOF if one adjusts (e.g., physical distance to the objects, lens, aperture) accordingly with the given camera in hands. The real factor is the *physical size* of the object projection on the sensor. To a certain extent, the physically larger the size of the projection is, the better the image quality is. Medium format camera has a physically larger sensor, allowing a physically larger size of projection for the same composition, thus having a higher *upper limit* on image quality.
0:35 a fourth factor affecting depth of field is the focal plane. It is often not that important when you're photographing at a distance but it is much more important when doing macro photography, so I thought it deserves a mention... :)
there is a reason that product photographers use longer lenses with more subject distance to get more DOF. IF you don't care about how big your subject is in the frame then wide has more DOF.
focal length is defined to the focal plane so thats pretty much covered here
@@peterzuehlke Wrong.
@@johnrus7661 think about this like you are cropping an image. shoot a photo on medium format, say a Hasselblad with a 38 biogon or 40mm at f/8. at hyperfocal distance roughly everything from 5 feet to infinity will be in focus. a lot of DOF. now, crop an APSC section of the frame. the 40mm is now a slightly long lens for this cropped area, but the same things will be in focus. you don't change what's in focus by the crop. people confuse this i think because they are used to shooting landscapes with a 24mm lens where nothing is closer than 5 feet and then shooting a headshot portrait with a 100mm 3 feet from the subject with the background 20 feet behind and way OOF. yay bokeh balls.
The depth of field is governed by one formula:
DOF = 2*u²*N*c/(f²)
where
* is multiplication.
u is the distance to subject
N is the f-number
c is the circle of confusion
and f is the focal length
That's all you need to know.
Now I'm in the circle of confusion
Its all about the fastest lenses available for a system, not the size of the sensor (only).
The lens speed arms race is pretty much pointless. There are so many other factors that apply in actual real worl applications. The range of uses for f0.9 is pretty slim.
@@benjamindover4337 never underestimate the power of young moms doing photography as a sidehustle shooting a whole wedding wide open.
@@sulev111 hilariously saw this play out at a friend's wedding, two photographers showed up with Canon SLRs with one 50mm F1.2 each (and no other lenses). Kept shooting with frowny faces without flash way into the night under those old-timey dim light bulbs and delivered grainy, out of focus results, converted to Black and White to hide the Canon color noise. I would have been so mad if I was the client.
@@problemat1que lol. I would love to see these pictures for a good laugh.
You totally missed the most important aspect in that discussion: Lens availability. In theory there is always an equivalent focal length and aperture. In practice however, only for mentioning one of many examples, you have no equivalent lens you can chose to use with either APS-C or MF to get the same look as an e.g. FF 85 1.2 (probably even f/1.4) .
And even then, doesn't the actual focal plane get smaller? Like even matching a FF 50mm 2.8 with a 35mm APS-C at 1.4 would look different because of the depth of the focal-plane itself. The bokeh/blur would be similar... but I'm pretty sure the FF would have a persons whole head in focus while the APS-C would only have the nose/eyes in focus leading to quite different look. People always give technical reasons why there is no "Large-format look" but there certainly is... it's easy to tell a movie was shot in medium format (65mm film-back). It looks WAY different than traditional s35 (APS-C).
I'd love to see the same comparison evaluating color depth , noise and low light performance.
why? You already know the answer.
When pictures are taken with the same quality of lenses and similar generation of sensors, obviously larger sensors are always better. THAT SAID, 35mm FF currently has way more great lenses than GFX does, so in the real world, I'd imagine that any low light and noise advantage of the GFX sensor is more than balanced out by FF having access to f/1.2 lenses and f/2.8 (or f/2) zoom lenses, whereas GFX only has f/1.7 for their brightest prime and f/4 zoom lenses.
Low light performance would scale to be the same since you shoot at equivalent aperture. Equivalent aperture means same DoF and same low light performance.
These related to the tech of the sensor.
Performance of different sensor of the same size varies from generation to generation, brand to brand.
While DOF don't.
It's taken a very long time for APS-C noise levels to get closer to FF, but they have. Once you go past 3200, smaller sensors still struggle to compete.
Ooops...basic error in the beginning i am afraid..the angle of field (wide tele) has nothing to do with the depth of field. A 150 mm lens at 5.6 and focus distance wil have the same depth of field on a 6x6 format as on a 4"x5" inch or a 8"x10" inch format. It will work as a wide angle on the 8"x10" (provided that it will cover the whole format), as a standard on the 4"x5" and as a long focus on the 6x6, but the depth of field remains the same.
A wide angle lens vs a long lens on the same format: the wide angle has more depth of field (at the same aperture) because it has a shorter focal length, not because it is a wide angle of view.
Put a 50 mm wide angle Haselblad lens on a full frame (35) camera and what do you get? a standard angle of view with a standard deth of field.
Actually for all practical purposes angle of view does matter, a 150mm on an 8x10 will be a wide angle of view, the same focal length on 35mm camera will be telephoto, forcing you to move the camera, if you could move back far enough, then yes the depth of field would be the same but that’s not practical or in most shots, not possible. So the practical approach would be to use the equivalent wide angle lens like 24mm to get the same depth of field. Yes the 150mm lens may have the same depth of field in all formats but in practice you have to move the camera position to maintain that depth which doesn’t work in the real world.
@@DavidPattonPhotography Sure, you're right. I just mean that Chris (and a lot of other people) is mistaken when implying that angle of view and depth of field are related, certainly not with the subject of this video in mind.
One thing often overlooked is the photographers that use medium format professionally. When you start talking about systems that are in the high thousands or tens of thousands, you also (usually) have access to much more than just a camera. This could be lighting,models, locations, time, highly skilled collaborators, etc. that go in to making images that give that certain look.
Totally agree and points very well made. I have used all 3 types of sensor extensively and now settled on APS-C Fujifilm and Hasselblad MF [Had GFX cameras, don’t care for them much]. Unless you’re printing huge there really isn’t enough difference to justify almost anyone moving to MF. Where there is a BIG difference is when I’m shooting interiors, which makes up the majority of my work. When shooting a room at 16mm on APS-C or 30mm on MF for the same FOV the difference in scene compression/distortion is huge and very noticeable. Even noticeable over 24mm on FF, and that’s why I shoot MF. If I wasn’t doing high end interiors APS-C has so many advantages and why I still have an extensive set of APS-C kit. 99% of people don’t need anything else, in fact shooting MF is generally an absolute pain - huge files, huge heavy cameras/lenses, mostly need to shoot tripod (yes IBIS is fine, but MF lenses don’t have fast apertures so you’re generally shooting with slower shutter speeds, often beyond the usefulness of IBIS) - not to mention the cost!
That's more a function of the lens optical quality than the sensor size
This is exactly the comment I've been scrolling for. The "magic" of MF isn't the shallow depth of field. It's the FOV, compression, and lack of distortion.
I don't know if this means anything, but when I got my GFX, I was headed out to a real estate shoot. I was itching to test out my new camera, so I got it out and shot some side by side with my FF Nikon. I was immediately impressed how geometrically "correct" the image was in the viewfinder! Granted, I was shooting at 35, not very wide, but still, I saw a very different image than what I usually saw with my other gear. (FF and APS-C). Is that what your talking about as far as less distortion is concerned?
@@alejandroarredondo1997 Yes, exactly that!
@@problemat1que The lens can definitely make a difference, a good lens produces less distortion for sure, but you can’t compare shooting with a 16mm to a 30mm lens (24mm in full-frame terms) and that’s the difference between shooting APS-C and MF to get the same file of view - the compression is totally different, it’s simple physics. Shoot a room with both side by side and it’s very clear.
While DOF can be adjusted by different lens/aperture ratio between formats, I think that the “mystical” difference can be in dynamic range and overall detail. And this might be also due to technological differences between sensors, where full frame and medium format might have been considered a premium and “pro” by the producing companies, thus having better technological advances
This is a great video that shows some similarities. One thing I always was taught was that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. If you stuck a 50mm lens on all three formats, it would be the exact same DOF. The difference is the coverage. Starting with the largest format, it would be wide angle. If you took a photo and then cropped the photo to the next smallest format, DOF would be identical, because nothing has changed. The difference is the angle of view. Crop it again to the smallest format, and DOF has not changed, but the angle of view has. The biggest factor to DOF is focal length. This is why an 8x10 camera with a 110mm lens would be extremely wide on that camera, but extremely tight on a full frame camera.
On my 6x6 camera, an 80mm lens has the similar field of view as a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. The DOF is very different, because they are different focal lengths.
In closing, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. The DOF is the same on any format if it is focused the same distance. The difference is the field of view. Changing focal lengths changes DOF.
It may go without saying but you boys did a lot of work to produce this video study. Not that all your videos take a great deal of work, but this was downright teacher level scientific prep. Two thumb up.
My thoughts before I start watching the video is basically that if you take a portrait with a telephoto on apsc, you have to stand every far away bringing your subject into the wide dof zone, where as a telephoto on medium format allows you to get closer more effectively Separating the dof zones
I generally prefer more depth of field than less and I like that I get it with a faster aperature on my m4/3. Of course with full frame you can raise the iso with minimal noise penalty so it really comes down to know your partner and learn to dance with her. Oh and if you want really shallow depth of field with apsc or m 4/3's then your partners going to be expensive. (Fast glass)
Sigma 30mm 1.4 for fuji is under $300 :)
Anytime I have ever had this argument with someone it has always been based on the same f stop, not equivalent f stop. I stick with my argument, you get more background blur with a medium format vs full frame or apsc
If you put a lens with the same size aperture on each format, you will get exactly the same depth of field. The largest format will have the widest field of view though, so to achieve the same framing, you need to move closer. Decreasing distance from subject is what makes the depth of field shallower in this case.
Most of the time, people compare equivalent apertures because full frame cameras have the most fleshed out lens lineups. There are few lenses made for medium format or APS-C that match the shallow depth of field of certain lenses, like a 50mm f/0.95, 85mm f/1.2, 105mm f/1.4; all of which are unique to full frame. Sure, a 105mm f/1.4 on a medium format camera will have even shallower depth of field, but does that lens exist? No. So it's a moot point.
For reference, I own a Speed Graphic with an Aero Ektar. That's a 178mm f/2.5 lens on a 4x5" camera. So I personally don't really care about the "medium format look" cause I've got that "large format look"! Honestly though, I find DOF chasing fruitless. Merely having a shallow DOF isn't all that matters, there's also the quality of the OOF highlights, the transition from blurry to sharp, etc. Blah. Just shoot whatever and be happy.
Hello. thank you for your really precise and mathematically correct test, its very clear and well done. However, There is something not really fair on it, and is that you are comparing Full frame vs the aps-c of medium format. If you want to go fair you need to compare only aps-c medium format vs aps-c 35mm sensors. Or... at least a full 645 sensor vs full 35mm sensor.
Said this. There are actual and noticeable diferences when you compare medium format (not even talking about 6x7 or bigger..) and smaller format. Actually you guys showed the difference at 6:58, where the 56mm shows all kinds of lens limitations and issues compared to a cleaner, softer and more perfect image on the 110mm. And this is, because the medium format lens is working more "relaxed": is a longer focal leght with smaller aperture, but has the advantage that is focusing at the same distance than the shorter focal lenght lens (so, even easier for the MF lens)
So, what happens with even smaller formats? all is focus transitional zone + the inconveniences of super short focal lenght. if you added micro four thirds to the comparison the degradation would have bee even more noticeable.
To me there is big misunderstanding about medium format and depth of field: Its not going to blur more, but its going to blur better. Its not going to make your subject pop more because its has less depth of field, But because it can cut out the subject in the same way as a telephoto lens does, but showing more image on the sides. Its not going to be clearer and sharper because the lens its better, but because the in-focus zone has "harder" boundaries making things go from super sharp to instant soft blur as transition zone is smaller.
1 sentence summary: Medium format is higher quality because it has the perfomance properties of a thelephoto lens combined with the field of view of a wider angle lens.
The "misterious" medium format "look" is, and always was: "A wide angle telephoto image." And this is what is terribly hard for people to understand. They notice, but dont know exactly what is going on.
Well said my friend
Well the 56 f/1.2 is also not a very good lens compared to the 110 or the sigma 85 on the Sony
Yes. Especially your last paragraph. I was just reading one of Ansen Adams’ books wherein he states that image size (compression) remains the same for a given focal length, regardless of format. Field of view (crop and only crop) is what changes for a given focal length across different sensor/film format sizes. Therefore, the magic of the “wide angle telephoto” as you put it, is in the fact that all of a sudden you are shooting a 38mm lens, with all its lack of distortion and its greater compression than you expect, at the same field of view as a 21mm lens on 35mm/full frame.
This is actually the reason that I have realized I feel too uncomfortable to use the 23mm Fujifilm lenses, whereas I much enjoy shooting a 35mm lens on 135 film. It haunted me for a long time why I just couldn’t get comfortable with either the 18 or 23 on APS-C cameras, and then it hit me: compression.
What your saying Chris makes a lot of sense. I'm a Fujifilm shooter and for me to achieve a Full frame DOF equivalent to 1.2f (which is readily available and can be found vintage) in crop-c that would be a 0.8f which is not only difficult for fuji to create in AF but gonna be bloody expensive. Bottom line, with the technology we have today the best and most affordable way to get the highest DOF is to use a full frame camera because there are so many fast FF lenses in the market what can beat the DOF produced by a 1.0f FF lens?
FF users about APS-C: ha-ha noisy crop
FF users about Medium Format: size doesn’t matter!!!
Truth! ..lol
I agree with your points in the video... Within the range of available apertures and lens focal lengths, you can get an equivalent depth of field appearance.
HOWEVER, there is a difference at the extremes, simply because of availability or practicality. For sake of comparison I'll use full stops to explain what I mean, although it may not be quite as exact in the real world...
When you are seeking shallow depth of field and are able to achieve it with an f/2.8 telephoto on medium format, for the same on full frame you need a comparable focal length and f/2... Or, with APS-C you will need focal length with f1.4. Depending upon the focal lengths involved, such large apertures may not even be available for the full frame and APS-C cameras. It depends upon the system. For example I have an APS-C camera where the fastest available 23mm lens is f/1.4.. In full frame there are 35mm f/1.4 that will be able to render about one stop's worth of greater DoF blur. In medium format a 45mm lens is roughly equivalent focal length and depending upon system you may have f/2.8 or f/3.5 at best, which would be unable to match the effect of f/1.4 on full frame. There is one 45mm f/1.8 made, but only in limited mounts and it's a strictly manual focus lens.
But what about longer focal lengths? Say you are shooting on full frame with a 135mm f/1.4 lens wide open. You wouldn't be able to replicate that with either APS-C or medium format because there is no equivalent lens. For APS-C you would need an 85mm f/1.0... And for medium format you'd need a 170mm f/2. No one makes either of those... There are 85mm f/1.2 lenses for some APS-C cameras... And in medium format the closest anyone offers is 150mm f/2.8 or 180mm f/3.5 in select systems.
How about even more extreme telephoto, such as a 400mm f/2.8 on full frame? For APS-C you would need 300mm f/2... well, actually 280mm. Doesn't matter. No one makes one. It's the same with medium format... You'd need a 500mm f/4. Those are available for full frame, but not for medium format.
It's similar stopped down to small aperture at the other extreme, but for different reasons. Diffraction is the concern and the larger the sensor format the more lenses can be stopped down before diffraction will have a significant effect on the end product. The reason is two-fold. One is that the image from the larger sensor needs less magnification to make any given size print, so any diffraction that occurs will be less problematic. But also because f/16 on a 12mm lens for APS-C is considerably smaller than f/16 on an 18mm full frame lens, which in turn is physically smaller than f/16 on a 23mm medium format lens.
So, yes, it's true that it's possible to render similar DoF effects with all three sensor formats... Until you are working at the extremes of focal lengths and apertures. Then the different formats each have their strengths and weaknesses.
Finally, it's always risky to simply say "multiply both focal length and aperture by the lens factor for the different focal lengths". While it's correct to multiply aperture for DoF effects, it is not correct for exposure purposes. If distance and focal lengths are equalized, f/2.8 for example will render more or less background blur depending upon format, but exposure parameters remain the same across all formats.
Dont agree, the test is flawed and here is why ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
Just to add my 2 cents:
M43 42.5mm f/1.2
= APC 57mm f/1.6
= 35mm 85mm f/2.4
= Medium Format 110mm f/3
ALL 4 SENSOR SIZES CAN GIVE PERFECTLY ADEQUATE DEPTH OF FIELD FOR PROFESSIONAL PORTRAITURE!
My 2 cents from experience for thoughts. With M43 42.5 1.2 on the same shutter speed you will need a lot less ISO than for example 35mm 85mm f2.4. You could say that full frame processes iso a lot better, yes, but the difference in ISO is usually greater than it's processing quality of different size sensors.
the cost of that 35mm lens is way cheaper than the m4/3 or DX and that is why I went back to FF from 4/3 and DX. Never owned a MF so don't know the prices of those lens but I know the bodies cost more than I have in my D3, D800, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 35mm F1.4, and 50mm F1.8 combined when bought slightly used. I have less than $4000 into all that and no MF body is < 4000 that I know of, much less any lenses. I use the 70-200 the most for my portraiture in my studio.
@@tomasrandom6430 No, the difference of required ISO directly reflects the difference in sensor size. Higher ISO means more noise but larger sensor captures more light and to get the resulting image you don't need to magnify the captured area as much. So ISO 200 on m4/3 is the same amount of photons as ISO 800 on full frame. But the catch is that you can have ISO 100 or even lower in full frame but you won't get ISO 25 on m4/3.
for me personally, it's about the look i am getting at a wider focal length with shallow DOF.
APS-C to FF, because of the CROP (or the lack of), I can stand closer to the subject (i shoot mainly portrait) and get a shallower DOF because of camera-subject-background distance than I can with an APS-C system.
The same is true Medium/Large format.
So, like most of you guys said, it's not the technical aspect of the camera systems we are aftering, it's the perceived look that we can achieve with one system compared to the other.
There might not be a "magical look" for any format, but FF gives you equivalent aperture lenses that are impossible to buy with AF and good optics in APSC or MF.
I think you should focus on focal lengths relative to sensor size rather than apertures as it plays a bigger factor in blowing out the background.
Depth of field doesn't change with sensor size, field of view does.
I love how veteran photographers still get this wrong! There are only TWO variables that affect depth of field DIRECTLY. Focal distance and aperture. Sensor size, focal length, and f-stop are all INDIRECT contributors. Here's the key factor that most don't know (which is sad) f-stop is the ratio between focal length and aperture. 100mm F/2 lens has an aperture of 50mm. A 50mm f/2 has an aperture of 25mm. Period.
Larger sensors will provide shallower depth of field indirectly due to A, having to get closer to compose the subject similarly to a crop sensor at the same focal length or B, have a lens with a longer focal length, which at the same f-stop, will have a larger aperture. You're welcome for the free lesson.
PS, i only watched to 41 seconds cause it makes me angry. I understand what they are getting at though. Medium format doesn't have the lens selection to compete with full frame. But if the format did, this wouldn't be a debate.
As a massive fan of medium format on film....I completely agree with this. I like medium format film mainly because of the way the antique lens renders the bokeh and depth of field. But with modern lenses, I don't think it's the same. It's not the format that causes it, it just helps. Very well explained video.
How fast can Chris say a whole bunch of numbers? I feel as if I'm being sold a used car.
The real depth-of-field myth that needs to be busted is the notion that less DOF is always better.
The myth that needs to be busted is the notion that there is right and wrong. Different things are used for different artistic expressions. There is no serious photographer who seriously thinks "less DOF is always better", so you're arguing a strawman. People use short DOF when it's the feeling they want, and their viewers like. Not because of some unwritten principle.
@@nikoolix There's definitely a lot of people out there aruging that shallower DOF is better. Not good or serious photographers, but a lot of people.
I couldn't agree with you more.
@@onegrapefruitlover I mean yes there definitely are people in all areas of arts that do a specific things purely for the principle. But it's not really a "myth" that needs to be argued against IMO. Those photographers will hopefully find different ways to make interesting photos eventually.
I guess this video is for people that are young enough to still be sharp...
I started off in the 35mm world back in 1967 or thereabouts when I got interested in photography and eventually ended up in medium format. I tried many formats over the years and now spend most of my time shooting in APS C, Leica (Leica seems to have the colour coding in the digital world figured out right). I don't know if you are old enough to remember this but I spent many hours in darkrooms but medium format film was so much easier to look at than 35mm negatives. I could never understand people who shoot in a square format. I like to use every bit of film I have in my camera. I admire Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham and all those members of the F64 club but I don't remember ever having f64 on any of my lenses. I love f11. Most of my lenses seem to perform best at f11. And now we seem to be in a vertical format world with every cellphone with vertical format camera in it. A narrow point of view, in my opinion. Thank you. I love your videos.
I had a professor in college who basically summed up this whole debate as: “The capture plane size doesn’t effect your field of view or your aperture, but it forces you to make decisions that do.”
Only if you are carrying around a single lens.
If you're carrying around an equivalent fov lens for your medium format and APS-C then you won't have to make any changes.
The only case where you're "forced" to move your camera is when you for some reason only have a 50mm APS-C camera and a 50mm medium format camera. Then yeah uhhh sure I guess for the same framing you have to take pictures from different places. But that's a totally contrived situation.
For most situations people have a case of primes at all common fov for their camera or a zoom. In which case you're back to there being no difference between formats except resolution or dynamic range or whatever differences happen to be in each sensor. But even then, the investment in FF sensors is so much larger that I imagine on average it's still a wash.
I am telling this for more than a hundred times.
Given the same aperture, it's just the magnification of the image that plays a part here.
And yet, on the one side people are slamming M43, on the other side they are putting small aperture lenses on full frame cameras in order to get a small setup... I have a good friend who made fun of my OMD1III with the Panaleica 25 F1.4 while he was literally holding his A7III with the 50mm F2.8 Macro in his hands...
I’m a M4:3 shooter. His only advantage was pixel pitch and bit depth. I prefer Oly ergos and colors
It's very hard to admit you've been duped by marketing to spend $2k on a body only to be camera poor and then attach sub-par lenses. I have a strong feeling your 25mm was optically superior to his pancake
Exactly. That's why it's so nice and unique to deal with the old medium format cameras, which, by the way, are currently rising in price again.
One or the other photo enthusiast is bored by the ever more perfect and ever more similar cameras and thinks back to the "good old days".
I have an old Bronica medium format camera. It is a great pleasure to work with it in a decelerated way and to achieve fantastic and unique results. Clear recommendation
Greetings and thank you for the video
This is great.
It would have been awesome to get a mft sensor with one of the Oly 1.2Pros in there too.
The different aspect ratios might make comparisons a bit odd since the "ratio" is based on the diagonal.
@@vhateg the gfx is the 43 relationship; yes a great comparison was missed on this one ☝🏽
Chris is correct. I have no arguments at all with this presentation. I will say that it becomes easier to understand once you think about it visually, rather than purely mathematically.
Once you think about it purely in terms of the truth: square inches on the sensor, you realize that the depth of field is really always the same, whether you mount the same lens on aps-c or full frame or medium format. The difference is ONLY in how narrow your field of view becomes on each sensor.
For example, I recently purchased a Nikon 200mm f2 and have been swapping it between an aps-c Nikon z-fc and a Nikon Z5 (via the FTZ adapter). The depth of field is the same on both cameras... HOWEVER, to achieve the same compositional framing on the z-fc, I have to stand further back. Because I am further from my point of focus, then the apparent depth of field changes. Once I mount the lens to my full-frame Nikon Z5, I can achieve a more shallow depth of field, simply because I am able to step closer to my subject to achieve an identical composition. I am sure if I adapted this lens to a "super full frame" Fuji GFX with a 0.79 crop factor, I could, of course, step even closer because I would be getting more of the scene in front of me projected onto the larger sensor. The only thing that is really changing is the distance between the camera and subject.
Of course, eventually all of this eventually becomes limited by the minimum focus distance of the lens--which, in my opinion, is the most underrated property of lenses for portraiture. Very few reviewers ever mention it, but the maximum magnification of a lens is very important for how much "bokeh" can be achieved--particularly when comparing two lenses of the same maximum aperture.
The net effect of all of this is that I while the depth of field does not truly change, I feel more compositional freedom when using the full-frame Z5 vs. the aps-c Z-fc, simply because the compositions don't feel quite so "cramped" and I can more easily approach my minimum focus distance where the lens is at its best, while still including as much as possible within the framing of my chosen composition.
Yup, which is why I prefer m4/3. I learned a long time ago, that different formats can all achieve the same look. And m4/3 offers me the best performance per dollar and size.
The only major downside still to m4/3 is the iso noise and low light performance. For travel photography, m4/3 kicks absolute ass. I’m just so used to shooting at iso 12800 and having mostly usable images on my Eos R during event photography that I couldn’t see myself moving formats.
"that different formats can all achieve the same look" No they can't. They can if you limit them all to the same equivalent apertures. F1.2 on MFT is equivalent to f2.4 on FF, so if you make that comparison yes they achieve the same look. But if you take an F1.4 lens on FF, then MFT simply doesn't have anything that can achieve the same look. Your comment kinda proves that you didn't understand this video.
Now before you say "I don't need FF or f1.4" (which is the answer I expect) that's not the point. You didn't present your personal opinion, you presented a fact-based statement that is false.
You can say all you want about different parameters that don't show much of a difference and are very similar between the different formats. in the real world, when you're out and about taking portraits, today's Fujifilm digital medium format has some magic going on making the images look way better! Way better I'm telling you! If it's tonality, dynamic range, whatever.. medium format image quality is just so much better!
@@Joe-hm1zk yes, but with AI denoising tools like DX Pure Raw, that disadvantage is no longer a factor.
@@nikoolix You can take that same f/1.4 lens and adapt it to m4/3 with a speed booster, and bam same look. Or you can get an f/0.95 lens and achieve it that way. But this is a corner case, the DoF we're talking about is more often than not too shallow. And those lenses are too big. I shot FF, and m4/3 lets me achieve the same exact look with quite a bit of advantages in cost and weight.
In fact for the same AOV the same aperture gives the same DOF, whatever the sensor size. However you need different f-numbers to get the same aperture. Remember, f-number is focal length divided by aperture. Confusing aperture and f-number are different things is OK in colloquial talk, but is what typically causes much of the confusion around equivalence.
I’m so glad you made this video! I’m so sick of hearing people saying “Love that Medium Format Look”. There is no Medium Format look. A 50mm f1.4 is the exact same regardless of which sensor size it’s used on. The only difference is that one can stand closer to the subject with larger sensors vs smaller sensors which allows the larger sensor to get shallower depth of field with the same field of view. But Fuji glass is too slow. Their f4 zooms are only f3.2 equivalent. They can’t even replicate the shallow depth of field as a FF f2.8. Not to mention, they are more expensive and have substantially less zoom range. Even Fuji’s primes are too slow with most being a f2 (f1.6 equiv) and one at f1.7 (1.4 equiv). Sony and Canon are already releasing f1.2 primes. I do believe the medium format sensor does deliver better ISO performance and more color depth, but one is going get a better “Medium Format Look” from a Full Frame system now days over Fuji’s offering.
It's also about the background magnification that comes with using those longer focal lengths. It will appear more out of focus because it's magnified (apparently often confused with having a shallower dof), but to Chris' point I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference on 44x33 vs. like 6x8 where a 300mm lens has the fov of a ~135mm on 35mm full frame.
I’ve put a Mamiya 80mm f1.9 (medium format lens) on my Sigma FP (full frame camera) with a focal reducer providing equivalency, and I can’t imagine a much shallower depth of field than what it provides. Pretty crazy unique images!
I assume a 0.7x focal reducer. That makes it a 56mm f/1.33 lens.
You can get 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses for full frame.
I always like Fuji's 6x9 medium format cameras. A huge piece of film, a manageable size and weight camera. But no meter at all, they were 100% manual.
More articles like this please! Let's have Live models, good/bad lighting, more analysis of results, blind tests, and throw micro 4/3 into the mix too :)
Here is a simple math trick: Divide the focal length by the f-number. What you get is the size of the entrance pupil, the thing that gathers the light. You will see that it's the same for all compared lenses.
The rest is parallax. The thing with your thumb jumping left and right if you open/close your eyes.
Actually a very good point/quick way to illustrate to someone what's "consistent" about lenses of different focal lengths and apertures. Thanks!
For me medium format is less about DOF and more about tonal gradations between light and shadows. Maybe that’s a myth too, or perhaps the MF photographers whose work I admire are just really good at lighting.
I guess if you can afford (and want to buy) a medium format camera, you're more likely to be good at photography and have more experience in that craft.
I think that was only true for film medium format.
Look at the sensor size- there's just not much difference. If you need more dynamic range there is always exposure blending for fixed subjects.
Neither are myths.
It’s very true. This “test” was designed to achieve a desired result. Yes, I can make an xt4 image “look like” a GFX image, but the quality of that image, resolution, ability to edit, shadow and highlight depth, will be significant different.
It’s all the same on Instagram. Much different when you’re printing a large bridal portrait.
I think that the reason why people get so confused by this topic is they fail to distinguish clearly between f-stop and physical aperture size. In this video “aperture” is f-stop. The argument is actually much simpler if we think in terms of physical aperture size. For example, a 25mm f/1.4 and a 50 f/2.8 lens have the same physical aperture size and hence render the same depth of field.
I always thought of medium format having better light falloff, not focus. The dynamic range of the shadows to light is so much more gradual in medium format. I actually was teaching someone about this recently and they were able to, only knowing this, correctly identify blindly, full frame shots(from a Sony) vs Fuji medium format shots. because sharpness comes from the lens, colour comes from the sensor, and depth of field comes from the aperture and distance from the subject to the background. But the light gradient comes from the sensor size.(ofc this is being a tad reductive but you get the idea) it's about the only consistent thing I've noticed whenever people do sensor size comparisons.
If someone could tell the formats apart without checking details it must have been due to the different processing of the files, be that in the raw converter profiles, or manufacturer jpeg engine.
Just curious, is there a way to copy or get close to that medium format gradation in full frame or APS-C cameras? Adobe profiles in LR are relatively contrasty compared to a linear profile that you get with Capture One. There are free 3rd party linear profiles for LR (I have a site for that) and it allows the image to look flatter and smoother in terms of gradation of tones. One reason I ask is because that smooth gradation of tones might not make a large difference when an image is on Instagram (both because of compression and size) so I wonder how much of a difference it REALLY makes in the end.
@@Bayonet1809 probably not, it was through a computer screen and the video was prints and insta posts.
@@vernonsza there is, you could do a stitch of several different photos taken from the same scene. you could do a pano stitch, or multi-bracketing. basically all you are doing is capturing multiple shots at various exposures, since the smaller sensors have less dynamic range than the medium format. there are actually many videos about getting the "medium/large format look" on smaller sensor cameras. and all of them revolve around this principle.
in the end I think the difference is only significant if you are looking for it specifically. and that I think is the greater point that Chris wanted to make in this video.
Agreed. But I don't think these 'small' medium format cameras like the gfx have much (if any) of an advantage here. I'm sure one can pick the difference when you know what to look for, but there is not really a discernable look like one sees on the larger sensors.
I follow the architectural photography world a bit and one can always immediately recognise work shot on these expensive systems. I also read an interview with someone (arch photog) who switched from Canon to the Fuji gfx for this purpose (adapting TS-E lenses) but switched back after some months because there was no perceivable benefits evident in the light fall-off which a lot of folks are chasing.
I think the problem here is the focus on depth of field differences. The real difference will be in compression. Why you ask? Optical Physics. The longer the lens, the more compression in the image you get, and this gives you a different "feel" to the images shot with different size systems.
Isn't the compression effect a result of distance from camera, not focal length? Of course, to get a substantial compression effect without a ridiculous crop resulting in a very low resolution image, you need to use a long focal length.
Oh, and can you do another one explaining the difference between tonal range and dynamic range?
Exactly, but the video displays the difference quite considerably 👌
Dynamic range when shooting at equivalent apertures for the same DoF would be exactly the same (everything else equal - same sensor tech, same shutter speed).
@@tntytube I meant in general as people confuse the two. Theoretically, a bigger sensor would have an ability to have more tonal range but pixel size works into that as well. And the difference in sizes in digital probably isn’t significant enough to be a factor like in film.
Depth of field is not different from sensor size to another. The lens itself is giving the same depth of field. The sensor is "cropping in" to the lens to get the field of view but the aperture doesn't change.
Sensor comes with other factors like lens selection, camera size, light gathering, etc.
Great video. Before I watched it I was worried it was going to be the old compression myth. Amazing how many professional landscape RUclipsrs still believe that stuff
compression, perspective and transition zones from focus and defocus is different for longer lenses. Simply explained - longer lens have more apparent (steep) transition zones from focus and defocus, perspective is different (objects appear flatter) and compression is different(object behind and front of the object appear larger). So :))).
@@veselingramatikov when the composition is the same with equivalent lenses, compression is the same. Convince yourself of that fact by watching "compression doesn't exist" on RUclips.
@@problemat1que not true. In the real world compression exist. You can rewatch the same video and agree that the author achieve same compression by take multiplie images or by other methods. Compression actually means that the background/foreground appear larger which flattens the fron/real plane of the image. Combined with perspective distortions (with telephoto lenses main object appear flatter) this makes overall look of the telephoto lenses vs wide angles. You can not replicate the look of telephoto lens with wider lens on the field. That matters more than any explanation that you can achieve same look with different lens. You cant with one image. Try to make 15mm lens to look like 500mm lens. Good luck with that.
Thanks so much Chris!!! Most photographers out there are so confused. All we gain on medium format is larger prints. Thanks again!
A similar question pops up about film photography vs digital! There seems to be quite a number compelled by the way film captures the light and colour etc. I would be fascinated to see how much of it might be accredited to film photography and how much of it would be achievable through editing. Or is it just people falling in love with the process....?
While the calculations are correct, why hobble the larger sensors for the sake of the test, making them equivalent? When you have good lens that’s fast, shoot it wide open and enjoy it.
It’s easy to find an 85mm f1.4 portrait lens for Fullframe, but that equates to about 56mm f0.96 on aps-c and there aren’t too many of those around, and that’s why fullframe is better, or more flexible for a shallow depth of field.
I shot a 135mm F5.6 large format portrait (35mm equivalent field of view) and it looked exactly like any old full frame image. It was a nice 4x5 film exposure with fine grain, but it was no more special than an equivalent APS-C portrait on a 23mm F2.
I nitpick and I know all about lens and focal plane characteristics and none of it was anything more special. It was just a bigger negative.
Further to that, I've owned a Rolleiflex 2.8 for years, owned full frame, APS-C and smaller 1" cameras and there's little difference.
What is different is the sensor's dynamic range, the lens' optical sharpness and bokeh characteristics. These make a bigger difference than anything related to format itself and there's not a great deal of correlation between format size and lens quality. High quality optics are available on most formats.
As a M4/3 shooter, my only problem is mostly not the depth of field, but the low light performance, and there is no alternative for something like a 50mm f1.8, or a 24mm f2.0 so in that case, much cheaper to invest into a full frame camera, insted of a fast m4/3 lense
I agree but one big point is missing : In the 2 mentioned examples, full frame would have easily won at the maximum aperture of the lens so full frame is the winner when it comes to shallow depth of field.
@@n1ngnuo the Sony lens shown is $1600, not exactly cheap
This video is awesome & it proves a great point. The point being that digital medium format is a money grab. You're not getting that 6X6 or 6X7 film medium format look. That Pentax & Mamiya medium format cameras give a very distinct & unique look. I dont think it's possible to get that look unless you use the Brenizer method in post. Also I recently ran into a gfx shooter while I was shooting some street photography & we sparked up a conversation. He was suffering from buyers remorse & was missing his XT3. He told me he fell into that hype of a bigger sensor equals better photos. I told him not to feel bad because these companies spend big bucks to make us feel like we need all these super expensive cameras & lenses. That's why I love you guys. Y'all dont hype the gear up like other youtube influencers. Keep up the great work guys.
bullcrap, grab a used hasselblad of off Ebay shoot it for a month and tell me you can go back to shitty 35mm...
Great episode! How about color accuracy and the gradation from light to dark areas?
I am considering what my next camera should be. I’m choosing between a Fuji GFX 50s II, a Canon or Sony Full frame camera, and the new Fuji X series camera coming out in 2022. I currently have the XT3 and I love it. But, I’m tempted and just want to make an educated and thoroughly thought out decision.
Despite knowing that FF is the sweet spot technically, I currently use Fuji because I enjoy their colour rendition and user experience. If I were you I'd wait to see what Fuji comes out with, see how X-T5 performs.
Stay with Fuji man, their new 1.4 lenses is all you will ever need. The new 33 1.4 is just a hell of a lens. Plus colors in jpeg on Fuji are super nice. Plus plus look of the cameras. There's no match at Sony with X-Pro 3 or X100V
I've been wanting to switch to a camera with 16-bit color. (GFX 100, any Hasselblad)...
A few months ago, I switched to DxO Photolab 5 Elite and it rendered my X-T{2, 3, 4) photos better than even Capture One. This made me think I don't need a new camera any time soon, as Photolab is bringing life to old photos.
Also, I am looking forward to seeing what those new X Series sensors can do for me.
@@calokid nice to hear that software can you give me some examples of fujifilm shots of your in lowlight especially the new bodies before when I used the fujifilm camera especially the fujifilm X-T2 before I saw noise grain at 3200 and my limit to that camera is 3200 ISO and if I need to take a shot even with noise is 6400 ISO. But right now I don't know the noise performance of fujifilm x100V, XT-4 and newer models and I want also the result you edit from the software you use because I'm Capture One user from the time I use Fujifilm thanks in advance 😁📸👍
@@junichinomura4810 The low-light advantage of some of the newer X-Series cameras really has to do with IBIS. I've shot with the X-T2 and loved the sensor. Every X-Series camera I've used starts to get noticeable noise around 3200, so no real change. On an X-T4, however, I can shoot handheld as low as 1/15th of a second, others, with a steadier hand can shoot as low as 1/8th of a second. The advantage of IBIS photography would only apply to photography in which tripods do not apply.
You could try Photolab yourself, and we could also decide on experiment criteria for exploring how low light looks on X-T4 or we could process one of your RAW files in different software to see the differences.
I watched this video multiple times, you can’t convince me that the aps-c sensors give a feeling of depth of field that isnt flat and the medium format pops in that category. Now full frame just has the best parts of medium format but medium just pops in a way that’s insanely easy to see and feel, and im a novice. I just can’t see aps-c touching the natural depth FF or medium format have
I got 6 minutes in and realised I've never argued about this, and I simply don't care.
Turns out my Internet addiction might be a problem.
I will try to make it easier for a subset of photographers - wildlife photography
As i am a hobbiist, i have 1 long lens for birding. I bought an old used d4, a slightly used d500 and for the extreme well lighted days a nikon 1 v2. Based on light etc, i switch the lens between the bodies.
So same lens, same settings on the camera, and same distance, as there is a certain distance what birds tolerate. If you are closer, they go away. So only the camera changes all other factor is same. In this case you don't need to think anything all the pictures will be exactly the same, but different crop. Depth of field same. Only difference you going to see is the "goodness" of the given camera's sensor.
So if you are in wildlife, just forget it as is. Use full frame if you can go close to the subject or light is bad, Use crop if you want profil photo, or you are a bit far, or the bird is small. And thats it.
In places where puffins are coming like 1 meter close to you without any fear, i would for sure use highest megapixel medium format, but that is almost like a studio photo where you go full for resolution as you can set the distance as you will,
I think the Magic is, you’ve got a 35mm look with the perspective of a 50mm lens. (Background Compression)
Thank you! I don't hear this emphasized enough. Forget depth of field, forget resolution, I want the perspective of a long lens with the field of view of a wide lens.
Microcontrast, color depth, inner contrastical detail, macrocontrast, mediumcontrast....wait, what are we talking about?
We need to talk about equivalent ISO too. Currently, you can get cleaner images on larger sensors (after adjusting the pixel count). E.g., shooting 50mm, F2.8, 1/60, ISO200 on FF is equivalent to shooting 35mm, F2, 1/60, ISO100 on APS-C. That's because full frame tends to be one stop better with noise. If light isn't an issue, you can use ISO100 on full frame and 1/120 which is an advantage for FF. Moreover, as others have mentioned, it will be hard to beat F1.2 on full frame with an APS-C for the same Bokeh, let alone with MFT.
@@djstuc no need to taylor anything. FF is one stop cleaner than APSC at any stop. And this advantage is most noticable at low light levels, where you can't weasle yourself around the fact that you need to use high ISO.
@@djstuc Actually, noise measurements are never exact. But this claim is the common interpretation of what is seen on test charts. You can have a look at the image comparison tool at DPReview to see yourself. My own experience is between MFT and FF, where two stops sound just right at a comparable 20MP count. You cannot compare a 100MP camera to a 24MP camera directly. You need to down-sample to compare. And, again, it is not exact. At least not as exact as comparing the DOF.
@@djstuc are you playing dumb or what? It goes without saying that we are comparing comparable things. Like current gen sensors of similar resolutions.
@@djstuc I just knew that you are a salty APSC user. No offence, but I shoot professionally a lot of protests, aome of which are in the evening or at night. I also used loads of different systems over the years: Nikon 1, mFT, APSC and Full frame. Full frame is where it is at, if you want ultimate capability w/o having to waste loads of time, with something like deep prime, to make high ISO photos look halfway descent.
@@djstuc Why would I punch my screen in rage? Use what you want. But the differences between FF and APSC are facts. Only people who dispute them are fanboys.
I hate to be one those people commenting BS on your video, but... You are total correct in saying that "Digital Medium" does not have a real "advantage" with DoF over APS-C. When you move to 6x9 and larger as a practical matter they do. If you use a f/2.8 lens on 6x9 you could get the same results with a f/1.2 on full frame. You can purchase f/1.2 but they are far from cheep. If you use a f/2.8 lens on a 4x5 then you would need f/0.8 which are very rare lens. I you moved to 8x10 you would need f/0.4 on a "full frame" camera. (Note: there are lenses which cover 8x10 at f/2.8 but they are again rare.) Another factor in DoF which you did not discuss is the size of the "print" being made. Hope this did not muddy the water on your very good presentation.
Well 6x9 cameras aren't cheap either. Plus you always kinda have to compare it in a timeframe. It's hard to compare a modern 50mm 1.2 to an old 6x9 lens. You can get a f1.2 on full frame for a few hundred bucks too they just aren't really great. Generally for 6x9 it seems like f3.5 is what you would get without breaking the bank. And you might want to stop down a tad on these older lenses. Plus film flatness plays a larger role in these 6x9 cameras. Plus these days many people talk about the "medium format look" when they talk about stuff like the GFX. They never tried to argue that you can't achieve something with a 8x10 camera that is hard to do with a 35mm one. Just that unless Fuji produces lenses with f1.2, the "digital medium format" DOF advantage isn't really real.
For me, the big appeal with medium format is the perspective distortion achieved by getting close, while still having a great field of view, adding great detail and colors. Like all of this working together in one image, sounds epic.
I actually grew up with relatively mild astigmatism for most of my life. Although it was a mild diagnosis it resulted in pretty severe nearsightedness in which I could very easily perceive things close and in front of me but I struggled to see detail in things that were more than a couple of feet away. It was something I just lived with and didn't recognize it as a problem until I was having issues at school and my mom took me to get my eyes checked.
I have found that I just prefer the look of shallow depth of field because its what I grew up with. I associated warm and intimate feelings with things I could perceive to be in focus. While the background is an important element to photography, I feel like in many instances it is not necessary to see the totality of a scene tack sharp for an image to be good or convey strong and relatable feelings. This is coming from someone that prefers subject photography and city-scapes.
To be frank, the only reason I have even considered medium format is because of the excellent color rendition of Fujifilm. I have been doing alot of research on Sony and Lumix respectively (Full Frame and MFT systems) and have not been able to find a workflow in which I wouldn't have to do tons of post processing in order to achieve the same color science that comes mostly built into fuji's jpegs and raws.
Most important factor in depth of field is final image size relative to viewing distance. Look at the same print from further away and the depth of field will be greater. Hence popularity of incredibly shallow depth of field when images are only viewed really small on Instagram. Same depth of field does not work for image to be viewed on phone and one to be viewed as 20" print (unless you view it from far away). So strangly this justifies fast, heavy, expensive glass just to post on Instagram.
Having had fast lenses in the past I looked through my lightroom catalogue and discovered I more often ruined shots wide open than not so now shoot with an f4 zoom in FF and it is great. I guess on crop I'd need an f2.8. Generally fast glass is a fetish as it is no longer needed to compensate for slow films.
Dont agree, the test is flawed and here is why ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
@@de-graftasafo-adjei4646 Edit of what I posted on that video: DPReview definitely triggered you didn't they! Depth of field is actually ZERO for all lenses and can only defined in practical terms by what an acceptable size for the circles of confusion on the sensor/film plane is (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) and that depends on the angle subtended at the eye of the *final image*. Literally all you have to do is look at a image with shallow depth of field on your monitor at a normal viewing distance and then look at it from the other side of the room and you will see that the depth of field appears to increase. Take a portrait where the ears are slightly out of focus as an example. From the other side of the room they will look in focus. In that case there is nothing to do with the camera at all :)
I shoot 8x10 (and whole plate) and contact print them and they look great but I know if I were to enlarge them the depth of field would be way too shallow - unless the prints were viewed from far away (Father Ted reference). So does the 8x10 have shallower depth of field than my APS-C with an f/2 lens on it? Well it all depends on the print size! (also subject distance which is a biggie).
It's so funny seeing people get wound up about this. Naughty boys at DPreview provoking everyone. I'm just stoking the flames.
It’s cool to show equivalence in different formats. A better comparison would be to use the best lens combination and push each format to its limits.
One thing I struggle with on Micro Four Thirds is ISO, as you would expect with a smaller sensor. My f2.8 lenses are more like f5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field. However, since sensor technology is constantly changing and improving, I wonder how much further you can push the ISO on, say, a Sony a7 IV vs. my OM-D E-M1 Mark II and get similar noise levels. I usually think of two stops as a rule of thumb, but is that really the case?
On my camera, I consider anything above ISO 6400 for emergencies only, and I wouldn't want to do much cropping above 1600. Unfortunately, I find myself reaching 3200 and 6400 more than I would like to when I'm shooting wildlife due to the fast shutter speeds.
I don't use M43 but use(d) FF, APSC, and 1". Crop factor works as you'd expect, and FF will look like the ISO is 1/4 of M43. That said, M43 has really, really good stabilization, so the difference will mostly appear with moving subjects.
My issue with M43 (I sold all my cameras and lenses (Lumix G9, etc.) was ISO, DR, and color noise, but mostly pixel density. The size of the G9 M43 sensor and the density of its pixels gives M43 a more digital look (less organic). This is also seen in some newer APC-S and FF cameras. Even though some look for pixel perfection, for me it was almost resembling iPhone quality. Raws were like artificially sharpened and I could easily tell the size of sensor by the look of the images.
@@borispradel1037 but can u imagine 10 years down the road when gh9 comes what can happen? Iso performance will be atleast twice or thrice better. And computational photography technology is expected to come to m43 before apsc due to smaller size.
Dang, that’s really sad. I will happily shoot at 12,800 for professional work, this is one reason I only use full frame bodies.
@@josh_boak yup 12800 ISO is the usable for lowlight scenario in emergency use also for colored photographs of any fullframe camera bodies right now 👍😁📸
Actually - there is a difference (although, most people will not care too much - but for my shooting, it is important to get a certain look). It's about the depth of field you can get at a specific distance with a specific focal length. That's what can make medium format images look "special" or maybe the real word is "different". Everything else is correct for the general case, it's just that there are situations where it is not possible to frame a subject at a specific distance and get the same fall off. For example, it can be very difficult to get a wide angle full bodied portrait with shallow depth of field on an APS-C camera, without either long zooms or exotic lenses - but even then, it's not the same look because you don't get the same distortion characteristics.
The thing is - a 24mm f1.4 IS a 24m f1.4 no matter what the sensor size. It doesn't change. But obviously the framing will be different at the same distance. So that's where the FOV and DOF equivalency comes in - you need to change the distance to the subject to get the same framing, and therefore DOF necessarily looks like it is different when on different sensor sizes.
This is only applicable in the context of shooting on native lenses to each system. The beauty of mirrorless is having the ability to adapt. 44x33 is actually a great compromise because in many cases you can still get full (or close to full) sensor coverage with FF lenses. Pairing digital medium format with those larger apertures gives an insane amount of compression. The biggest advantage is compression at wider focal lengths. This also doesn’t take into account natural dynamic range and detail retention in post processing.
compression comes from camera distance, not the lens. the lens limits fov, as does the sensor, so moving to medium format gives you more fov within the same focal length, but doesn't do anything to perspective.
This video literally disproves the "compression" thing, how did you miss that?
The interesting thing comes in that to get equivalent depth of field we end up with different apertures, so you can shoot medium format in daytime at a desired depth of field and be less likely to blow out highlights as the aperture will be more closed down to achieve it than apsc. Also, at night, we can gather more light on apsc without being restricted by razor thin depth of field that we would have on a larger format at the same aperture.
At night, you would just shoot a full frame camera with a narrower aperture and higher ISO if you don't want so thin depth of field. The better sensor performance would mean it's no sacrifice. But you do have the *option* of a faster aperture equivalent, letting you get better low-light noise performance or faster shutter speeds.
There's no way to spin APS-C as an advantage in low light.
@@AyeBeAPirate Yeah, fair enough, my comment was likely more acedemic than practical!
Depth of field is only really influenced by focus distance and aperture diameter in mm. Exposure is influenced by the focal ratio, otherwise known as F-stops. Interestingly, focal length directly impacts exposure, requiring a larger aperture to maintain the same F-stop.
In the case of larger formats, longer focal lengths are used to achieve the same field of view as smaller formats. These longer focal lengths reduces exposure, so to maintain exposure, you use a larger diameter aperture. This brings exposure back to parity, and reduce depth of field.
I’d probably consider both APS-C and FF to be kind of the sweet spots for photographers. Sensor advancements allow shooting at darker F-stops at night, while the availability of very fast lenses for both systems allows for extensive flexibility.
In theory, there is no DOF difference between the sensor formats. In practice, if you want a shallower DOF, you need to go FF because it has the lenses which offer a much shallower DOF.
It's all about the lenses. The bokeh on Fuji's 56 looked kinda bad, but a refreshed version should be coming soon to fix that.
LOVE that you guys covered this, and love that you did it in an easy-to-understand way. People get so hung up on the MF look or in the film world the LF look and they are really usually only talking about equivalent f stop. And really, even in film sizes, most fall within the "f/1.2" 35mm equiv as their shallowest lens. I choose FF over APS-C really only for cost of lens for a given aperture. I can easily buy an f/1.4 or f/1.8 50mm in FF for peanuts compared to the f/1 or f/1.2 APS-C lens and it will usually be smaller. I choose APS-C when I want an overall smaller system.
I think the bigger issue that I know you weren't covering here is tonal range for a given sensor size...how important is it in these digital sensors that aren't really physically much different? Is that where a Foveon or Monochrome only sensor has an advantage? Why does the Foveon APS-C and M10 Monochrom seem to shoot above their sensor size?
Also flash sync speeds had a part to play. When shutter were slower larger formats offered a shallow depth of field you couldn’t get when using a 35mm camera. Now we have high speed sync to help achieve that.
Great video! Thumbs up for the effort Put in! Thank you! in my opinion, in the real world, when you're out and about taking portraits, today's Fujifilm digital medium format have some magic going on making the images look way better! Way better I'm telling you! If it's tonality, dynamic range, iso.. whatever.. I just wish Fujifilm had Sony/canon level auto focus and video features.
100%. Working on my GFX 50S files in post is a dream. No longer use ND Grads when on a landscape shoot.
Something I noticed pretty straight away when I started with a Nikon D3300 several years back, some companies are much better at supporting the APSC format than others. Fuji ofcourse knocks it out of the park, while I think Nikon and Canon string you along with some decent APSC lenses here and there, hoping you will 'upgrade' to full frame. If you do your research and want to commit to a smaller/lighter kit, it's very much worthwhile researching what APSC-specific lenses said company offers first. Thankfully many third parties fill the APSC-starved gaps of Nikon and Canon on the DSLR side. Things are rolling out a little more slowly with the RF and Z mount. Here's hoping we see more quality 3rd party autofocus lenses make their way to those mounts in the coming years.
On full frame 35mm lens, you would get a 35mm field of view with a 35mm compression (because it is a 35mm lens).
Take an equivalent field of view lens on a medium format (55mm lens in medium format world) and what you now have is the 35mm field of view of a full frame, but with a 55mm compression because it is a 55mm lens.
Now when you compare the two, you have:
Full frame 35mm - 35 field of view, 35 compression
Medium format 55mm - 35 field of view, 55 compression
Longer focal lengths are always going to give you shallower depth of field so that is the magic of medium format. You are able to shoot wider than full frame and get more separation dude to compression. This point was completely missed in this video.
Lens compression isn't real, it's completely dependent on your distance from the subject. You can test this with a zoom lens on a tripod and take pictures of a static subject at different focal lengths, and crop to match the framing.
@@SquirrelHybrid no disrespect but you are completely wrong haha. 28mm will never look like 50 on a full frame (or any sensor size for that matter) no matter how many steps you take.
The wider you go, the more distortion. The longer you go, the more compression. Wider will push the background away (why you should real estate interiors and it’s them) and telephotos will pull the background elements closer. Basic photography techniques.
@@andrewgardelle516 telephotos will pull the background closer only for the fact that you will make some step back from the subject... not for the focal length itself
The "compression" will vary with the distance from the subject not with focal length "alone".
As said... If you take a static subject and and you take a photo with a 100mm and then you change the lens with a 28mm cropping the image to have the same field of view... the 2 images will be the same.
Because it's not 6x6 (or 6x7) film... it's much smaller. That being said, you're now paying $1/click for Portra 400 on 120 if you're shooting 6x6, even more if you're shooting 6x7. It's not at all economical for hobbyists. I can print Instax cheaper than that.
I feel like this video kinda proved the opposite. It's a situation where a standard medium format lens gets you this baseline depth of field but meanwhile on the APSC you have to blow a bunch of money on their very high end super wide aperture lenses to try and replicate the DoF benefits of a larger sensor. I'm not a "gear matters" kind of person with gear acquisition syndrome or anything but when you have to make the other cameras work a Lil harder to replicate something that the other one does naturally, the natural one seems the winner?
Yeah but what about the cost of the medium format bodies? Doesn't really seem like you are saving a lot of money by going with that option, if any at all.
@@alexbustamante6532 yeah i thought about that too, but that also depends on the body you're getting. Fuji GFX 50R retails 4.5k USD, almost always on sale for 3.5 or even 3k. My A7RIV retails 3.5 as well, so it's effectively the same cost. Only time cost really becomes a factor i feel is if you're genuinely debating an APSC vs Full Frame vs Medium Format, but depending on the body, your price range between FF and MF is negligible
The 56mm is $1000, the Sony $1600, the 110mm is $2200. In APS-C you can go up to 50 F1 at $1500 (not coincidentally similar to the Sony) or down to 50 F2 at $450, making it a very flexible system for both size and price.
@@problemat1que yeah if we're using the price argument obviously APSC is far superior at being cost effective but the video isn't as much focused on the price end, moreso focused on the final image. Obviously price matters, it's just a secondary subject here
There is indeed a difference if you take for example a X1D and a full frame lens like a 50mm 0.95 with large enough coverage for those medium-ish format digital sensors.
The logic of the test is strange in my opinion: "let we adjust the aperture for the medium format camera so it has the same depth of field as an APS-C camera. Now you see, it has the same depth of field!" ))
Basically the medium format makes it easier to make shallower depth of field lenses. GF 110mm f/2.0 is equivalent in terms of depth of field to a 55mm f/1.0 on an APS-C camera. And the latter lens will be definitely inferior in terms of quality wide open. And GF 80mm f/1.7 simply doesn't have any equivalent in the XF world. Let alone zoom lenses.
And this difference is even more pronounced if you compare larger film formats to a "full frame". Basic f/3.5 lens for 6x9 will produce the same depth of field as f/0.75 on an APS-C camera.
Whenever I hear arguments like this video, the diminishing returns you suffer trying to match the “medium format look” with anything but is never addressed, especially in the comment section. This is the first I’ve seen addressing just that.
Dont agree, the test is flawed and here is why ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
@@kapapa3764 yes we do. And in fairness Fuji GFX (and any other relatively affordable "medium format") is not so much of a "medium format" if compared to FF.
Thank you! It finally does come down to size, weight, cost and personal preference. To each his own. Let's all just go out and shoot. :)
Dont agree, the test is flawed and here is why ruclips.net/video/fHCtop_yfvY/видео.html
Well done, brave work with reproducible workings out with essential considerations taken in to account. Nice myth buster.
The benefits with larger format are more resolution possible which are great for fx Landscape Photography with wide angle Lenses so you get the most out of the details, I think it is easier to make a good wide angle Lens for larger format than for smaller format Cameras.
Thank you for illustrating this important point! For 99 pct of consumers going the apsc route will provide more detail than they need and they can then invest the money they saved (by not buying a full frame body/lenses) in the very best apsc glass that will give them exactly the same DOF and bokeh as full frame. As this video shows, the results will be exactly the same as long as you calculate equivalency right.
There are 35mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2, and 85mm f1.2 lenses for FF, all with AF, for which there is no APS-C equivalent. You would need a 23mm f0.8, a 33mm f0.8 and a 56mm f0.8, again with AF. They don't exist on APS-C, so, no, it's not possible to get the "very best apsc glass"to get exactly the same DOF and bokeh as full frame. That's the problem.
@@youuuuuuuuuuutube Yes, I am assuming that almost all consumers do not need anything wider than a 1.8 or even 2 FF aperture. Good 1.2 FF glass is huge and costly and very few consumers buys or needs it. Professional use is a different game. Depending on their needs FF and medium format can totally be necessary.
Hi Chris. You are talking about background blur which may vary but depth of field remains equal at any given aperture regardless of sensor size. I love this channel and have been following you guys since camera store
Moving from my a6400 to the new A7IV was pretty ridiculous. First of all there is only F1.4 lenses available for the 6400, but there’s also f1.4 lenses available for the A7IV. So as long as you have the fastest lenses for both, there’s a pretty dramatic difference. But even Winset to a very similar depth of field, the full frame camera definitely has a “thing“… It’s absolutely different in my humble opinion. I have no experience with medium format though, although I would have to imagine that same intangible applies
its cause you get more image at any focal length when you move up sensor size, and focal length is where the compression of field of view and bokeh are imprinted here, with bigger sensors you can use tighter and tighter focal lengths, which also happen to be more flattering on people. So you can use a 35 where you might have had to use a 18 do to size of environment and that can be life changing
If you're talking about the feeling of the "3D" look, that's also dependent on the specific lens, it's not dependent on the sensor size directly.
@@nikoolix 3d lens are wild but nah, i just mean focal length compression, shoot someone at 18 or wide and then again something like 85 and you can see clearly one is more flattering because that specific mm handles field of view/ compression a specific way to achieve the right mm. The bigger sensor also gets more of the image on the same mm because its just bigger than the aps-c sensor, so on the same mm you may be accustomed to you know get more image to compose on the newer camera.
@@VirisNS Wrong, what you call "compression" is entirely a factor of field of view (and its implications for subject distance), not focal length. Try taking a headshot with a telephoto and then from the same location take another with an ultra-wide, then crop the ultra-wide to the same fov as the telephoto and you will see that the perspective distortion of the facial features is the same.
@@Bayonet1809 i disagree completely. wide angles lenses are known to "bend" walls and straight lines. This affect is on everything including faces. Wide angles lenses give a fuller and different image to a telephoto. Whether you prefer it or not artistically is up to you but to say it does not exits is wrong on your behalf. Different focal lengths do compress the real world depending on the mm, if they all compressed the same there would be no different mm's cause it all be the same. Field of view is the result, compression is how you get there.
While this was great and illustrative, I do think two components are missing. The first is framing. Every focal length has front to back distortion which is rarely talked about. On wider focal lengths this is exaggerated and can result in keystoning straight lines while on telephoto lengths this results in compression. The longer the focal length length, the more compression.
Something that a larger sensor like medium format gives you is the ability to shoot a longer focal length with a shorter distance from the subject allowing for wider framing on a more compressed shot. A 70mm lens has the same front to back distortion regardless of what sensor the lens housing is designed for. If manufactured correctly, it will produce the same DOF per F-stop independent of sensor size
However a 70mm is much wider on a medium format camera than an apsc camera so if you want the same framing with the same focal length, the subject has to be much farther from the camera resulting in a wider DOF. One solution is to do what was shown in the video which is change both the focal length and the F-stop and you can achieve similar results. Sometimes though, the front to back distortion changes enough that it is a problem depending on what you are shooting and how you want to shoot it.
The second issue is more of a tech one... Medium format has more bit depth and sometimes this shows up in bokeh. 16bit often just has smoother transitions. Could they put 16bit in smaller cameras? Yes but it isn't as common. For most people the price isn't worth the slight change but for some it is and that is why MF sells today.