Medium format Vs full frame

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Trying to help a friend not become gear obsessed, but I realise I'm a bit out of my depth with this.

So assuming you're printing no bigger than A2 what would the noticeable difference be between a high MP full frame DSLR and a medium format body?

I'm guessing like for like apertures you'd get slightly less DOF, but would you get better tonal range too?
 
It's one of those 'all things being equal' popints.

All things being equal bigger is automatically better. But the amount of money being spent developing smaller sensors points to a FF sensor probably punching above it's weight though.

Then you have to consider lens quality - with some awesome MF lenses which are cheaper and easier to build than equivalent quality smaller lenses.

There's some interesting tests of the D800 vs MF on the internet, but I've no idea how 'independant' they are?
 
Are you talking medium format digital?

I've just made the switch, I used to use a Canon 5D Mk3 as my main body and have for the past few weeks been using a Mamiya AFDii / Leaf Aptus system.

As you say tonal range is improved, the files are native 16 bit, so can be pushed and pulled a bit further. The dynamic range also seems improved, I shoot landscapes and am having to use fewer grads than previously.

Finally there is an unquantifiable element, a bit like the difference between listening to a CD and listening to vinyl, the CD is excellent quality but the vinyl is better to listen to. As a guide have a look at my flickr photostream, http://www.flickr.com/photos/markmullen/ where everything before and including the canoeist on the second row is shot with Canon dSLRs (5D3, 1Ds2, 1Ds, 1D2 and 450D) and the first 7 images are shot on MFD. They have a very different feel to them, I was quite surprised last night when I viewed them in that order for the first time to see the difference.

You have to watch DoF, and it seems to show up any deficiency in your technique that you might have got away with on 35mm digital. The viewfinder is awesome to use, the camera is a real weighty thing, the lenses are good and sharp and the lack of AA filter means everything comes out good and crisp without needing tonnes of sharpening. I've just had some prints made for an exhibition I've got starting tomorrow (at Joe Cornish's gallery in Northallerton) and the detail shown from the MFD files when printed at 600mm x 400mm is superb, even right at the corners.

Best of all I can remove the back and use it on a technical camera if I want, I've got a Linhof Technikardan which has amazing amount of movements suitable for architectural stuff. You could even use the back on a large format camera, an Ebony or Wista for example. As a system it is very flexible.

Finally, and it is only a small thing, sensor cleaning is a joy, the sensor is right in front of you, you can see what you're doing, and you're not proddling about down in a mirror box.
 
Like for like, and all things being equal etc... ;)

The primary IQ benefit of larger formats is they don't require the lens to work so hard, as the resolution demands are much lower for same size output. Fact of physics is as lens resolution goes up, so image contrast goes up - call it punch or whatever, but it's the % figure that runs up the side of a lens MTF graph and that's what contributes most to what we call sharpness (rather than a billion pixels).

Then larger formats collect more light, so ISO performance is improved, noise goes down, and dynamic range goes up - basically more shadow detail, better tone separation and cleaner colours.

Sheer numbers of pixels don't add much to image quality unless you print big, at fine DPI, and with a very sharp lens. Then they do.

Edit: oh yes, and larger formats give less DoF at same aperture and framing.
 
Last edited:
Sorry yes digital, I think the camera he was talking about was the Leica S2.

I know this is all very subjective, but would you all agree that unless you were absolutely scrutinising the printed A2 image, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether it was taken on MF or not?
 
treeman said:
Sorry yes digital, I think the camera he was talking about was the Leica S2.

I know this is all very subjective, but would you all agree that unless you were absolutely scrutinising the printed A2 image, you'd be hard pressed to tell whether it was taken on MF or not?
Click to expand...

When it comes to specifics, the all-things-being-equal bit goes out of the window.

The S2 hardly qualifies as medium format, being only 50% larger area than FF. Proper medium format, ie film, is about 3x larger than FF (eg 6x4.5cm).

And the S2's sensor, like all medium format digitals, uses the ages old Kodak CCD that is hopelessly behind the times compared to modern CMOS on ISO and noise handling.

On the other hand, the S2's lenses are pretty good, but then so are the best FF lenses. I seem to recall quite a good comparison between the D800 and S2 where the Leica had a marginal edge on sheer IQ (and on balance, the theory probably backs that up) but the Nikon blitzed it on ISO, frame rate, AF etc.

As for not being able to see the difference between formats except in big prints, that's where resolution and pixels comes in, but on the higher lens MTF inherent to larger formats, that's visible at quite modest sizes. For example, check out Mark M's fabulous medium format landscapes :thumbs: on his Flickr link. Some of those really sparkle even small on screen, and while I'm sure they've had plenty of TLC in post processing, working with such fundamentally high IQ in the first place will always show an advantage.

I bet his 60x40cm exhibition prints are just utterly fabulous. That's when it all comes together on the IQ front - big format, sharp lens and plenty of pixels, then printed BIG. Wonderful :)
 
HoppyUK said:
As for not being able to see the difference between formats except in big prints, that's where resolution and pixels comes in, but on the higher lens MTF inherent to larger formats, that's visible at quite modest sizes. For example, check out Mark M's fabulous medium format landscapes :thumbs: on his Flickr link. Some of those really sparkle even small on screen, and while I'm sure they've had plenty of TLC in post processing, working with such fundamentally high IQ in the first place will always show an advantage.

I bet his 60x40cm exhibition prints are just utterly fabulous. That's when it all comes together on the IQ front - big format, sharp lens and plenty of pixels, then printed BIG. Wonderful :)
Click to expand...

Very kind Richard thanks.

As you say seeing them printed big confirmed I'd spent the money wisely.

As for ISO, my Leaf shoots at 25 as base, it is quite noisy at 100 and I wouldn't venture beyond that! For my kind of stuff that doesn't matter (and in fact helps for longer exposures) but for anything moving it could be an issue.
 
You're very welcome Mark. I'd love to see your show :)

It's such a shame that we don't see so much of nice big printed images these days. Or for some digital users, even make any prints at all :eek:

Perhaps landscapes are the best subjects for finest IQ. When I do get to see a show, or just pop round to a mates house* where he always has a batch of his new work printed out A3, I always look closely at the landscapes just to admire and soak up the detail, right to the edges. Whereas with portraits, I tend to stand back to take in the image as a whole. Most other kinds of subject actually - nothing is quite so demanding IQ wise as a good landscape IMHO.

* He uses a D800 btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top