Digital Medium Format Thread

Mr Perceptive said:
it’s not just the sides you need to worry about, very high resolution sensors require quality optics with a high line-pair figure - hence why Canon updated a number of lenses when they released the 5DS and 5DSR and part of the reason why the latest high spec FF lenses cost so much.

I doubt whether older Pentax designs were ever envisaged to work with high MP digital sensors and 150MP would really be pushing/testing them, yes they might exhibit similar sharpness across the FOV, but I wouldn’t expect them to resolve a 150MP image meaning that your money on the sensor would be wasted
Click to expand...

There is that - but there's no reason to expect some of them wouldn't manage - some comfortably out resolve the pixel pitch of the 645z as it is. Even the older 100mp full frame MF sensor would be a valid option as well which has lower pixel density.

The company can develop high quality optics - the K3m2 already shares the pixel pitch with the A7R4 sensor, which in turn shares the same pixel pitch as the 150mp full format one. Some of the older 67 lenses are incredibly sharp indeed and could cope with that sensor and there is nothing to stop them developing newer lenses to go with. It might help the 645z stand out against the Fuji system which as we've seen in this thread with sample images - even newer lenses can struggle.
 
SFTPhotography said:
The 28-45 and 90 are not old and are new designs for the digital era. They are exceptional.

The others are older and actually designed for a film that is larger than the 44x33 "crop" medium format sensor that the 645z/d use which is the same size of that in the Fuji system. Softer sides don't enter the equation as the sensor crops off the sides of the much larger image circle they project.

Still with me.

Good. This would in theory open the door for Pentax to offer the superior 150mp sensor that sees life in the vastly more expensive phase one true medium format system-with a lens eco system to buy into.

Furthermore - the 645z is a DSLR which is preferable to some but not others, and if you're comfortable buying used there's a healthy supply of used lens for the price of 3 tanks of petrol (you still have the Audi) which overall makes it an economically more attractive proposition.

My experiences of the 45-85mm and 80-160 is that they are old, but high quality lenses that work well on the camera. The 200 prime is also good but doesn't have its DXO lens profile so sharpening is a little more work
Click to expand...
Yes the 28-45 has good reviews and as I think you mentioned it is double the price of the 32-64 not to mention a smaller zoom ratio which all helps.
It no doubt would stand up to 150MP but the older lenses would certainly need upgrading al least with coatings.

I did look long and hard at the Pentax and Fuji before getting the Fuji and took most advice from a long time Pentax D/Z user so I've nothing against Pentax.
Px colour management and it's coatings are well paired, likewise with Fuji but give a different image style.

I used the 80-160 and 150-300 and though happy with them there was always a little niggle that everything had to be right to get the best out of them.
That made me try the Fuji 100-200 very recently which has never had stunning reviews but the usability and results are night and day better. (For me)

I just jumped in as I feel the slating of the 32-64 is a bit OTT and sadly I got rid of the Audi, the Caddy van takes as much to fill but just lasts longer LOL
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
Yes the 28-45 has good reviews and as I think you mentioned it is double the price of the 32-64 not to mention a smaller zoom ratio which all helps.
It no doubt would stand up to 150MP but the older lenses would certainly need upgrading al least with coatings.

I did look long and hard at the Pentax and Fuji before getting the Fuji and took most advice from a long time Pentax D/Z user so I've nothing against Pentax.
Px colour management and it's coatings are well paired, likewise with Fuji but give a different image style.

I used the 80-160 and 150-300 and though happy with them there was always a little niggle that everything had to be right to get the best out of them.
That made me try the Fuji 100-200 very recently which has never had stunning reviews but the usability and results are night and day better. (For me)

I just jumped in as I feel the slating of the 32-64 is a bit OTT and sadly I got rid of the Audi, the Caddy van takes as much to fill but just lasts longer LOL
Click to expand...

It is double the price...RRP but shopping around got me mine new for £3100 vs £4400. However it is without any doubt the best wide angle zoom ever made. I think Fuji would be have better going down this route, a more expensive but higher performing lens - especially for 100mp systems. It really isn't good enough. Their users can afford it and would choose to if it was exceptional. It's clear from the 23mm they can develop exceptional lenses.

Personally, I think they should have developed a 25-45 lens, which would sit well with the 45-100 and 100-200 offerings although I think Fuji should have developed a 100-250 lens for that extra bit of reach and given high end 35mm users a 3 lens system they could just get up and go with a field of view similar trinity lens equivalent system works so well on the small format system.

Colour management I might actually give the nod to the Fuji over Pentax being honest. On the 645z they seem to come out slightly red cast, quick curves adjustment fixes it - this might be DXO's decoding of the files rather than anything else.

Everything just right, that's just photography for you. Compose, focus, expose. CoFoEx is something I teach in my workshops. If you recompose, you refocus and then re-expose. I am on the fence re a 150-300 - a sample image might sway me. If it's any good I can sayonara my full frame gear which would liberate £2000 or so.

Anyone on here got a 150-300 sample to send me.
 
Last edited:
I find the 'Audi to Caddy' metaphor bizarre. That Fuji lens alone costs more than many people's systems, and at this end of the market it's more like comparing Ferrari with Maserati. It simply isn't acceptable to make a lens with blurry edges at this level any more than it would be ok for the windows not to work on one of those cars.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I find the 'Audi to Caddy' metaphor bizarre. That Fuji lens alone costs more than many people's systems, and at this end of the market it's more like comparing Ferrari with Maserati. It simply isn't acceptable to make a lens with blurry edges at this level any more than it would be ok for the windows not to work on one of those cars.
Click to expand...

It's a good day if you have a Maserati and the engine warning light doesn't come on...same with all these expensive cars actually and the Kia's keep joggin on with no faults or anything.

I digress, I agree - this lens doesn't pass the requirements I have. I'm not saying I wouldn't get a Fuji or I wouldn't recommend one, I just wouldn't put that on the front of it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I find the 'Audi to Caddy' metaphor bizarre. That Fuji lens alone costs more than many people's systems, and at this end of the market it's more like comparing Ferrari with Maserati. It simply isn't acceptable to make a lens with blurry edges at this level any more than it would be ok for the windows not to work on one of those cars.
Click to expand...
No metaphor used, simply a reply to Steve mentioning the Audi S4 I used to own and I said I now have a Caddy van, They both have the same tank capacity but the Caddy takes a hell of a lot more miles to get through it, Simple.

While I'm at it my 32-64 doesn't have blurry edges or at least not enough that I've noticed on the images I take and no I'm not going to take a suitable test shot so a few haters can check my copy.
Reminds me when Top Gear started the JD Power rankings here in the UK, Subaru had top rankings and the Jag and certain Mercs came near the bottom, over the next few years Subaru nose dived because the Jag and Merc drivers bought them and complained about the button layout etc not what the car could do!
Sounds a lot like where this thread is. :)
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
It is double the price...RRP but shopping around got me mine new for £3100 vs £4400. However it is without any doubt the best wide angle zoom ever made. I think Fuji would be have better going down this route, a more expensive but higher performing lens - especially for 100mp systems. It really isn't good enough. Their users can afford it and would choose to if it was exceptional. It's clear from the 23mm they can develop exceptional lenses.

Personally, I think they should have developed a 25-45 lens, which would sit well with the 45-100 and 100-200 offerings although I think Fuji should have developed a 100-250 lens for that extra bit of reach and given high end 35mm users a 3 lens system they could just get up and go with a field of view similar trinity lens equivalent system works so well on the small format system.

Colour management I might actually give the nod to the Fuji over Pentax being honest. On the 645z they seem to come out slightly red cast, quick curves adjustment fixes it - this might be DXO's decoding of the files rather than anything else.

Everything just right, that's just photography for you. Compose, focus, expose. CoFoEx is something I teach in my workshops. If you recompose, you refocus and then re-expose. I am on the fence re a 150-300 - a sample image might sway me. If it's any good I can sayonara my full frame gear which would liberate £2000 or so.

Anyone on here got a 150-300 sample to send me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the 101 photography guide but I thought we were speaking about lens performance and I was simply referring to the Px's handling light level/brightness/directon.
The wide zoom is said to be on the list for the future but think for fairly obvious reasons going to 250 on the 100-200 isn't as simple as you want or believe.

"the small format system" LOL
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
No metaphor used, simply a reply to Steve mentioning the Audi S4 I used to own and I said I now have a Caddy van, They both have the same tank capacity but the Caddy takes a hell of a lot more miles to get through it, Simple.

While I'm at it my 32-64 doesn't have blurry edges or at least not enough that I've noticed on the images I take and no I'm not going to take a suitable test shot so a few haters can check my copy.
Reminds me when Top Gear started the JD Power rankings here in the UK, Subaru had top rankings and the Jag and certain Mercs came near the bottom, over the next few years Subaru nose dived because the Jag and Merc drivers bought them and complained about the button layout etc not what the car could do!
Sounds a lot like where this thread is. :)
Click to expand...

Could just be a few bad copies out there, same can be said about most lenses probably?

I came across this: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-gfx/Y-GF32-64-DSF4677-MOD.HTM

The corners/edges look pretty good to me.

1623797245679.png

1623797259204.png

1623797290488.png
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I doubt whether older Pentax designs were ever envisaged to work with high MP digital sensors and 150MP would really be pushing/testing them, yes they might exhibit similar sharpness across the FOV, but I wouldn’t expect them to resolve a 150MP image meaning that your money on the sensor would be wasted
Click to expand...

Someone [here] surely should be able to stick them on GFX100 with an adapter. Would be very interested to find out. Not all older glass was bad. Usually it was wideangles and long range zooms.

Mr Perceptive said:
it’s not just the sides you need to worry about, very high resolution sensors require quality optics with a high line-pair figure - hence why Canon updated a number of lenses when they released the 5DS and 5DSR and part of the reason why the latest high spec FF lenses cost so much.
Click to expand...

1. Canon should pay more attention to their QC as designs alone is not enough. 2. A number of them were fine from a long long ago. 400mm f/5.6 resolves like crazy and so do most 70-200mm, the big whites, the 135mm prime, and a few others. But Not 100mm macro L, and not 24-70 f/2.8 II and not many more of their EF zooms like 24-105 II, unless that is their famous QC once again. Their best resolving lens is 50mm f/1.8 STM for around £100. Go and figure that out.
I have little knowledge of the RF lenses, and they don't interest me one tiny bit. Plastic, mega expensive, no real focus ring, extending designs, noisy and slow STM motor in too many of them and probably designed to fail within 10-15 years at the latest. Are they really that much sharper? Genuine question.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Could just be a few bad copies out there, same can be said about most lenses probably?

I came across this: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-gfx/Y-GF32-64-DSF4677-MOD.HTM

The corners/edges look pretty good to me.


View attachment 321437
Click to expand...
Jesus G have you not noticed you're not allowed to say anything positive about Fuji here, "the experts" will run you out of town. :)
It's the wrong kind of grass or just think how good a Px lens would do or Canon would do with the buttons in the right place and 2 tripod mounting holes!
Never forget the tripod mounting holes that Px has LOL
 
Last edited:
Most useful feature of this forum is the ignore button.
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
Jesus G have you not noticed you're not allowed to say anything positive about Fuji here, "the experts" will run you out of town. :)
It's the wrong kind of grass or just think how good a Px lens would do or Canon would do with the buttons in the right place and 2 tripod mounting holes!
Never forget the tripod mounting holes that Px has LOL
Click to expand...

I think you're reading words that aren't there - nobody hates Fuji, just for the one weak lens. It's important not to identify with the outfit - if your pictures are good no-one will ask why you used a lens they don't 'approve'.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bastable said:
Most useful feature of this forum is the ignore button.
Click to expand...
I dunno, threads always have good entertainment value when The Chuckle Brothers team up.
:LOL:
 
gman said:
Could just be a few bad copies out there, same can be said about most lenses probably?

I came across this: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-gfx/Y-GF32-64-DSF4677-MOD.HTM

The corners/edges look pretty good to me.

View attachment 321436

View attachment 321437

View attachment 321438
Click to expand...

A few...that's the only sample image we've seen that isn't bad at the sides. We've seen more that are. Furthermore, I've not had anyone with one on here come forward to provide an image for analysis.

FYI - no one on here is bashing Fuji - but expressing very legitimate concerns as to why something that was designed so recently and costs so much performs in this way. The hysterical overreaction to this concern is actually, of concern.
 
SFTPhotography said:
A few...that's the only sample image we've seen that isn't bad at the sides. We've seen more that are. Furthermore, I've not had anyone with one on here come forward to provide an image for analysis.

FYI - no one on here is bashing Fuji - but expressing very legitimate concerns as to why something that was designed so recently and costs so much performs in this way. The hysterical overreaction to this concern is actually, of concern.
Click to expand...
There was a lot more said than just about the lens, on the S and non S 100 with quite frankly pure fantasy on the differences.
I've also said I'm happy with my 32-64 and nothing I take is suitable as test chart.
Even if I had I'm sure you'd not be happy until you found something and I'm sure others feel the same given your OTT opinions.
But heyho enjoy the Px
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
There was a lot more said than just about the lens, on the S and non S 100 with quite frankly pure fantasy on the differences.
I've also said I'm happy with my 32-64 and nothing I take is suitable as test chart.
Even if I had I'm sure you'd not be happy until you found something and I'm sure others feel the same given your OTT opinions.
But heyho enjoy the Px
Click to expand...

Wait a minute.

I never mentioned the actual bodies?

You don't need a test chart to spot a dud, the images supplied by @LongLensPhotography did that just fine. When admonished for pointing out such an obvious shortfall in a short range zoom costing £2000 I gave links to further examples which other forum members such as @ancient_mariner spotted similar issues with.

Then, in replies to @Topsy I actual said I liked to have been proven wrong and neither of you have supplied images. I also repeatedly stated how highly I thought of the 23mm image on the lens and the clean nature of the 100mp - except for the numerous hot pixels. Conveniently to paint me as some sort of zealot you've glossed over this.

@gman bothered to check the Pentax images I kindly supplied and there is a post from him saying my edges are fine.

There is nothing OTT whatsoever in expecting a £2000 to be pretty much perfect. If you think that then fine, but I would suggest it is your view that is OTT - and not mine.
 
Last edited:
TimHughes said:
Such a rotating icm is possible by hand or supported, no?
Click to expand...

You could do it by hand, but it's easier to do with a 3 way head with 2 out of the levers tightended tight and one not.... simply focus, compose as normal and set an exposure for around 1 sec. Then pull the lever you would use to level the horizon down either clockwise or anti-clockwise.

An extreme example

_IMG1168 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A less extreme example

_IMG1169 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

The fun is you never know quite what you will get until it is done.

I think I will be doing an awful lot more of this - despite it being a bit of a waste of a medium format camera's talents.

Endless fun.

_IMG1120 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Now...anyone guess how I did this. Clue - it isn't an ICM as such....

_IMG1167 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
@SFTPhotography I'm not usually worried about corners and I'm not a pixel peeper so I've never checked the corners. Looking through the catalog of pictures with the 32-64, I'm not finding any issues however in most cases the corners are out of focus or do not contain much detail for example (https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/digital-medium-format-thread.699936/post-8867209). Next time I have it on the camera I'm happy to take a few test shots so you can see another example. Any suggestions for what would make a good subject for the test?
 
TimHughes said:
@SFTPhotography I'm not usually worried about corners and I'm not a pixel peeper so I've never checked the corners. Looking through the catalog of pictures with the 32-64, I'm not finding any issues however in most cases the corners are out of focus or do not contain much detail for example (https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/digital-medium-format-thread.699936/post-8867209). Next time I have it on the camera I'm happy to take a few test shots so you can see another example. Any suggestions for what would make a good subject for the test?
Click to expand...

When I was checking out the various samples I found tress and foliage not the best subject because of the risk of movement. Buildings or anything static with some smaller level of details (railings, rubble, items, signage etc) seemed to work best.
 
SFTPhotography said:
You could do it by hand, but it's easier to do with a 3 way head with 2 out of the levers tightended tight and one not.... simply focus, compose as normal and set an exposure for around 1 sec. Then pull the lever you would use to level the horizon down either clockwise or anti-clockwise.

An extreme example

_IMG1168 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A less extreme example

_IMG1169 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

The fun is you never know quite what you will get until it is done.

I think I will be doing an awful lot more of this - despite it being a bit of a waste of a medium format camera's talents.

Endless fun.

_IMG1120 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Now...anyone guess how I did this. Clue - it isn't an ICM as such....

_IMG1167 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
Click to expand...


There's some great spinning ICM shots in this thread. In fact a lot of great ICM photos!
 
TimHughes said:
@SFTPhotography I'm not usually worried about corners and I'm not a pixel peeper so I've never checked the corners. Looking through the catalog of pictures with the 32-64, I'm not finding any issues however in most cases the corners are out of focus or do not contain much detail for example (https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/digital-medium-format-thread.699936/post-8867209). Next time I have it on the camera I'm happy to take a few test shots so you can see another example. Any suggestions for what would make a good subject for the test?
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Right....

I think something with detail into the corners or sides would be fine. Try to avoid a foreground so we can rule out focusing or depth of field issues and a subject that doesn't move unitentionally.

If possible someting architectural front or diagonal on

_DSC4523 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Or

_DSC8535 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Scenes like this with texture into the sides are a really stern test of lens performance.

Or

_DSC5193 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr


ancient_mariner said:
Nope, not ICM, it's zooming during exposure.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
God I thought I was brutal...just the 100% view does it for me.
Click to expand...

This deals with all the 'was it too close to be in focus/how can I tell if it's me or the lens/were the trees moving?' etc. The only lens I ever tried this with (zeiss 55 f1.8) passed OK, but as is usually the case, if you don't want to know the answer then don't ask the question.
 
Some lenses also have a very curved field of focus, i.e. sides are in focus a lot closer than the centre. Canon 17-40 was probably the best (i.e. worst) example of this, and it usually came with some good amount of decentring too. As a result this was nearly unusable in horizontal orientation but as a vertical you could effortlessly compose any foreground in and it would be all in focus! I'm glad this "special feature" lens is just an old memory. I think this somewhat affects the aforementioned 24-70 f/2.8 II but thankfully the new 16-35 f/4 is a lot better at wide settings. It is worth checking for this and then doing away with lenses that are not relatively "flat"
 
Just tried some random shots and when I look at them in C1 it's automatically corrected the orientation of the ones taken upside down. How neat is that?
 
gman said:
I might do that just for a laugh, how do you reckon the Sony 35mm will perform? Not so sure about the Sony 24-105mm though lol
Click to expand...

The 35 should be good. I'd expect the 24-105 to be a little less bad than the Fuji 32-64 if stopped down, but by no means perfect. I did do some corner comparisons with mine a while back for someone with a 24-70 and it wasn't great but also not horrible.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Nope, not ICM, it's zooming during exposure.
Click to expand...
Maybe he just sprinted full pace with the camera while shooting a longish exposure. I took quite a few of the spinning type shots for a camera club thing. Quite addictive not having a clue how and image will turn out. I liked using a long lens and spinning the camera by loosening the tripod mount collar.
 
wookie6262 said:
Maybe he just sprinted full pace with the camera while shooting a longish exposure. I took quite a few of the spinning type shots for a camera club thing. Quite addictive not having a clue how and image will turn out. I liked using a long lens and spinning the camera by loosening the tripod mount collar.
Click to expand...

That's a new technicque to try rather than the zoom burst. Thanks....

I rather like the element of surprise - not quite knowing what you'll get. Don't get me wrong, I'll never not take my more usual pictures but this is a lot of fun, in a very different way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top