Digital Medium Format Thread

Are you using LR or do you edit in DXO, On1 etc, luminar etc

LR for most stuff, use Dfine for noise reduction and Silver Efex Pro for mono conversions - been using this workflow for a long time so have quite a bit of reluctance to change.- can't use DXO as it doesn't support Fuji RAW files from X-Trans sensors and I don't want to do a pre-conversion to DNG
 
LR for most stuff, use Dfine for noise reduction and Silver Efex Pro for mono conversions - been using this workflow for a long time so have quite a bit of reluctance to change.- can't use DXO as it doesn't support Fuji RAW files from X-Trans sensors and I don't want to do a pre-conversion to DNG

Shame you can't use DXO - the deepPrime noise removal is really something so they say. As a low ISO shooter I doubt I'll ever use it though.
 
I'd agree with @SFTPhotography - different sensor sizes/lens systems have optimum sharpness apertures - typically (and there are always exceptions) M43 is around F5.6, APSC around F8, FF around F11 and Medium Format around F16 - all of these roughly equate to F11 on FF - some lenses/systems will be slightly away from these values but its a good guide to get started with.

The issue then with MF (and to some extent FF) is that in the UK you can very easily start to run out of light, so exposures have to be longer to compensate - not a problem with a tripod, but significant winds can then start to have an effect with foliage. Can be solved by bumping the ISO (acccepting the negatives that come with that) to keep shutter speeds up.

Part of the current 'trend' with focus stacking (and this applies to any system) is the 'desire' to have significant foreground interest driven by the fact that many people have UWA lenses and feel the need to use them as wide as possible at lot of the time (and get a super clickbait dramatic shot). This then presents huge depths of field which to get a consistent sharpness on a high MP sensor requires the image to be stacked. If this is your target landscape type shot then you'll need to focus stack whatever camera system you use.

The reality is that many 'landscape' images don't need the use of an UWA lens (I don't own anything that is wider than 24mm on FF equivalent) and Steve's images above were both narrower than that.

I have a GFX50S and have spent a lot of time using it handheld, and I've been impressed with the front to back sharpness even at wider apertures than F16, obviously the higher MP of the 100S may show up a slight lose of sharpness used the same way, but if one was to print the image rather than zoomed in and pixel-peeped I'd be surprised if anyone can tell the difference.

Thanks for this. Almost everything I do is on a tripod to be honest so fading light isn't really a problem in that respect. I think *having* to focus stack every image rather than choosing to would be a deal killer for me. I just couldn't be bothered with all that effort for every image.

Regards...
 
Whilst...sounds ominous.

I'd keep the camera and the MF stuff - the IQ a) future proofs it for 8k and beyond b) you'll regret it once it's gone c) it's simply amazing

I’d put it in the classifieds here Steve. Now withdrawn.
Gotta give it some love. Or as @Mr Perceptive says. Keep the Faith.
 
From a walkabout in Godalming. GFX GF45

Many years ago the shop shown here was a Fishmonger, Poulterer, and Game dealer. Hanging from the rails, depending on the season would be Chicken, Duck, Turkey, Rabbit, Hares, Pheasant, Widgeon, Partridge and other game. Displaying the wares for the customer to choose from. Today these kind of shops have largely disappeared. Todays shoppers seem to prefer it pre packaged and somewhat sanitised.

Parfrements.jpg by Trevor, on Flickr
 
Colour me impressed !!
Exposed for the sky and massively recovered the shadows.
Not a great picture, but wanted to prove to myself just how malleable these files are.

The riverside at Godalming

DSCF0122-Edit.jpg by Trevor, on Flickr
 
Gotcha :D

Even more malleable when you start reducing the highlights, and then boosting exposure (as well as the shadows!!)

I tend to expose towards the right anyway, better signal to noise ratio. Not always feasible with landscapes where the dynamic range of the scene pretty much fills the histogram.

I tend to leave the exposure slider alone and attack it in curves, doing a slight colour shift with each R, G and B curve to neutralise any colour casts (blue shadow areas in snowy scenes).

I'd say the files off the 645z are very neutral, flat even-which lends itself perfectly to post production and subtly
 
I tend to expose towards the right anyway, better signal to noise ratio. Not always feasible with landscapes where the dynamic range of the scene pretty much fills the histogram.

I tend to leave the exposure slider alone and attack it in curves, doing a slight colour shift with each R, G and B curve to neutralise any colour casts (blue shadow areas in snowy scenes).

I'd say the files off the 645z are very neutral, flat even-which lends itself perfectly to post production and subtly

The GFX50S files are very neutral as well, but in poorer lighting the AWB tends to veer slightly towards the blue, very easy to correct though. I've been pleasantly surprised how much effort is required in PP compared with a Fuji APSC X-Trans file. The amount of detail is just crazy, but its the subtle tonality that I love the most.
 
For me its the tonality, the improved DR and the 'depth' of the images, rather than look at an image, it draws you in, you look into it.
Agree totally. I found the same back in the 1980s (was it really 40 years ago?) when I moved up from 35mm, got a Mamiya 645 kit and later went 6x6. My plan is to eventually move on my current Nikon and Sony gear and go to digital MF but the obvious issue will be cost. One for the back burner, though.....
 
Agree totally. I found the same back in the 1980s (was it really 40 years ago?) when I moved up from 35mm, got a Mamiya 645 kit and later went 6x6. My plan is to eventually move on my current Nikon and Sony gear and go to digital MF but the obvious issue will be cost. One for the back burner, though.....

I'll say this for the Pentax...the camera was expensive but if you're comfortable hitting eBay then there are mint used lenses for low 3 figure prices. The IQ is something else and the lenses are stellar.
 
Last edited:
So, being relatively new to the 645z there are a few things I'd like guidance on.

ISO - you can have ISO 100, 200, 400 etc.

On my old Nikon you could choose more ISO steps between these - for instance ISO 160, ISO 250, ISO 320 - is there a setting in the 645z to enable a more fine tuned ISO control.

Although ISO400 on the Z seems as clean as ISO100 on the D810 - which started at base ISO64 - something I don't miss as it made exposure times that shade too long. By ISO 200 on the D810 you could see a lot more grain than at ISO400 on the 645Z but I'd appreciate the ISO160, ISO 250, and ISO320 settings.
 
Last edited:
So, being relatively new to the 645z there are a few things I'd like guidance on.

ISO - you can have ISO 100, 200, 400 etc.

On my old Nikon you could choose more ISO steps between these - for instance ISO 160, ISO 250, ISO 320 - is there a setting in the 645z to enable a more fine tuned ISO control.

Although ISO400 on the Z seems as clean as ISO100 on the D810 - which started at base ISO64 - something I don't miss as it made exposure times that shade too long. By ISO 200 on the D810 you could see a lot more grain than at ISO400 on the 645Z but I'd appreciate the ISO160, ISO 250, and ISO320 settings.

Problem solved - taken from another forum.

"It is set in the custom settings menu, items 1 and 2.

In menu item 1 you set the exposure steps to either 1/3 EV or 1/2 EV increments.

In menu item 2 you then set ISO steps to either be 1 EV (as you have it set now) or to match what you have set in item 1."

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...at/425091-iso-control-645z.html#ixzz6uyX7DZj1
 
Now my latest zine has been distributed to the two zines swaps I'm in, I can start dribbling out some of the images (and the ones that didn't quite make the cut!)

The zine is a set of images taken from the man-made peninsula (over several; visits). The peninsula formed when the Weaver Navigation was constructed to allow larger ships to reach Northwich and Winsford and still access the Mersey at low tides. The M56 passes across (over) this peninsula.


Rocksavage Peninsula 1
by David Yeoman, on Flickr

GFX50S+GF30mm
 
Part of the current 'trend' with focus stacking (and this applies to any system) is the 'desire' to have significant foreground interest driven by the fact that many people have UWA lenses and feel the need to use them as wide as possible at lot of the time (and get a super clickbait dramatic shot). This then presents huge depths of field which to get a consistent sharpness on a high MP sensor requires the image to be stacked. If this is your target landscape type shot then you'll need to focus stack whatever camera system you use.

The reality is that many 'landscape' images don't need the use of an UWA lens (I don't own anything that is wider than 24mm on FF equivalent) and Steve's images above were both narrower than that.

Now the real problems begin when shooting with longer lenses like 50mm or even 35mm and including foreground. You need 2-3 or even 4 images to stack. I have hardly ever seen the need with the uwa. Add a few more frames for different exposures and multiply that by the days shoot. 50mp is incredibly demanding and it hardly even matters what the sensor size is. Only way I can deal with this is put it together in Photoshop by hand, which is too damn long to edit all the images. Any success with any sort of expedited process?
 
Now the real problems begin when shooting with longer lenses like 50mm or even 35mm and including foreground. You need 2-3 or even 4 images to stack. I have hardly ever seen the need with the uwa. Add a few more frames for different exposures and multiply that by the days shoot. 50mp is incredibly demanding and it hardly even matters what the sensor size is. Only way I can deal with this is put it together in Photoshop by hand, which is too damn long to edit all the images. Any success with any sort of expedited process?

Avoid foreground :D - usually the distant view is what is interesting so go with that. The tighter the field of view - the more challenging it is to get front to back sharpness. That's true for M43, APSC, 35mm, small medium format and proper medium format like phase one and hasselblad.

I've found at typical wide but not ultra wide field of view (think 25mm 35mm equivilent) F14 on the 645z works very well. I've never had to stack a thing with it.
 
Now the real problems begin when shooting with longer lenses like 50mm or even 35mm and including foreground. You need 2-3 or even 4 images to stack. I have hardly ever seen the need with the uwa. Add a few more frames for different exposures and multiply that by the days shoot. 50mp is incredibly demanding and it hardly even matters what the sensor size is. Only way I can deal with this is put it together in Photoshop by hand, which is too damn long to edit all the images. Any success with any sort of expedited process?
Avoid foreground :D - usually the distant view is what is interesting so go with that. The tighter the field of view - the more challenging it is to get front to back sharpness. That's true for M43, APSC, 35mm, small medium format and proper medium format like phase one and hasselblad.

I've found at typical wide but not ultra wide field of view (think 25mm 35mm equivilent) F14 on the 645z works very well. I've never had to stack a thing with it.

Surely the real problem is the obsession with sharpness - in an attempt to out resolve your eyes in print!
 
Back
Top