MF vs. FF

falconeye · 10-26-2008, 04:23 AM

From time to time, when the topic pops up why or if digital MF is superior, I make the following reference:

Look up some fine art nude website (like Hegre Art) and study the samples. They are from digital MF, normally Hasselblad, and present the rare chance to study images made by this kind of camera in (almost) full size (Adam deleted links to such images I posted in the past so I won't do it now).

Tell me if you could produce similiar photos with a smaller format sensor? By similiar, I mean similiar in quality, not style

vinzer · 10-26-2008, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Boucicaut

I am definitely interested in a digital MF, much more so than in a full format digital. Price has to be right, however, because I'm a hobbyist. A bare bones digital MF with weather sealing would be IDEAL. No frills, bells and whistles for me please. And, please, give us a tilt/shift lens too!

Regards,
Boucicaut

How about we lump in in-body stabilization as well? The technology's already there, just a few tweaks to adapt it for MF (or FF).

torge · 10-26-2008, 05:08 AM

... and I'd be very tempted to buy one!

This would meen it has to be:
1. very affordable compared to other MF digital options
2. compact
3. rugged
4. relatively fast (for MF that is)

It should definitely work with the existing line-up of 645 lenses. Might only need a wider wide angle due to crop factor.

Exiting times (again?),
Torge

**Pål Jensen** · 10-26-2008, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Look up some fine art nude website (like Hegre Art) and study the samples. They are from digital MF, normally Hasselblad, and present the rare chance to study images made by this kind of camera in (almost) full size

Well, I sort of loose interest in what camera has been used when looking at that sort of images....

**Pål Jensen** · 10-26-2008, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by torge

...
It should definitely work with the existing line-up of 645 lenses. Might only need a wider wide angle due to crop factor.

Torge

Any significant crop factor will cause problems in my opinion. Apart from whine about FF (645 FF that is), the lens line isn't really large enough. You will end up with strange focal lenghts and obvious holes; popular focal lenghts that simply are missing. And there will be no strong or super wide angle. A 645 28mm/4.5 lens would be extremely hard to design and extremely expensive and have a huge front diametre.

falconeye · 10-26-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Well, I sort of loose interest in what camera has been used when looking at that sort of images....

Exactly what I say ... the photographs speak for themselves

BTW, Petter Hegre is a Norwegian photographer. Is he known in Norway?

24X36NOW · 10-27-2008, 05:06 PM

Nope, no interest in medium format. Lots of interest in FF 35mm dSLR. Lots of comments regarding "affordable" here, sounds like limited practical interest, since it's unlikely to be cheap if they do make a MF.

Photomy · 10-29-2008, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Shallow DOF is a read herring. One in a million published images have very thin DOF and most of those would be better without it. The main problem with MF, and particularly landscape photographers, is too little DOF. Many type of images i impossible to shoot with MF because you cannot get the whole subject in focus. I rarely shoot wider than F:16 on my MF camera for a reason. The main reason for large formats "popularity" is that it gives you more DOF than MF due to the tilting function.

Are wedding and portrait photos considered published images? I guess not, however, they are very important to the people that are making a living from this business. Shallow DOF is desired for this arena. How many photographers make a living from wedding and portrait photography as compared to landscape photography? Personally I enjoy and do both types so have more than one type of camera. Of course have to agree with your comment regarding the challenge for increased DOF for many landscape shots.

inuafrj · 10-29-2008, 09:11 AM

hmm.. i'm leaning towards 35mm FF more than MF..
I'll probably invest in old 35mm lenses as well (just in case Pentax decides to make an FF DSLR).

falconeye · 10-29-2008, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Photomy

the challenge for increased DOF

When does this urban legend stop to be posted?
DoF (for a given FoV) is a function of the physical diameter in mm of the aperture -- ONLY!

The more glass, the more shallow DoF is possible.

It is not, I repeat, N.O.T., a function of the sensor format.

Except, of course, that lenses for larger formats can have, and tend to have more glass. But large lenses exist for small sensors, as well.

pingflood · 10-29-2008, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

Any significant crop factor will cause problems in my opinion. Apart from whine about FF (645 FF that is), the lens line isn't really large enough. You will end up with strange focal lenghts and obvious holes; popular focal lenghts that simply are missing. And there will be no strong or super wide angle. A 645 28mm/4.5 lens would be extremely hard to design and extremely expensive and have a huge front diametre.

Didn't stop Mamiya from making one for their new MF digital camera. Yeah, it costs a bunch (around 5k) but it isn't that huge for a MF lens.

stevebrot · 10-29-2008, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

When does this urban legend stop to be posted?
DoF (for a given FoV) is a function of the physical diameter in mm of the aperture -- ONLY!

The more glass, the more shallow DoF is possible.

It is not, I repeat, N.O.T., a function of the sensor format.

Except, of course, that lenses for larger formats can have, and tend to have more glass. But large lenses exist for small sensors, as well.

Urban Legend...NOT!! There were several extensive discussions of this issue within the last couple of months here on this forum.

From those discussions, I seem to remember circle of confusion (CoC) being part of the DOF calculation. I also recall that CoC is dependent on detection media size. If you really want to get sticky, the final display/print size and viewing distance can also factor in.

Those in doubt can simply go to one or more of the DOF calculators available on the Web:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Julian's Lens Calculator (Also does FOV and magnification)

Or, if you don't like either of the above, click here for an exhaustive list!

Google DOF

Steve

jeffkrol · 10-29-2008, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Urban Legend...NOT!! There were several extensive discussions of this issue within the last couple of months here on this forum.

From those discussions, I seem to remember circle of confusion (CoC) being part of the DOF calculation. I also recall that CoC is dependent on detection media size. If you really want to get sticky, the final display/print size and viewing distance can also factor in.

Those in doubt can simply go to one or more of the DOF calculators available on the Web:

Online Depth of Field Calculator

Julian's Lens Calculator (Also does FOV and magnification)

Or, if you don't like either of the above, click here for an exhaustive list!

Google DOF
.......................

Steve

Nope urban legend...............
Depth of field formulae derived from geometrical optics imply that any arbitrary DoF can be achieved by using a sufficiently small CoC.................
Note nothing about sensor size

Circle of confusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the final image size is not usually known at the time of taking a photograph, it is common to assume a standard size such as 25 cm width, along with a conventional final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, which is 1/1250 of the image width. Conventions in terms of the diagonal measure are also commonly used. The DoF computed using these conventions will need to be adjusted if the original image is cropped before enlarging to the final image size, or if the size and viewing assumptions are altered.

Using the so-called “Zeiss formula” the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.024 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results

NOTE all the gotchas.... and ass-umes....

Alan 2 · 10-29-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Nope urban legend...............
Depth of field formulae derived from geometrical optics imply that any arbitrary DoF can be achieved by using a sufficiently small CoC.................
Note nothing about sensor size

Circle of confusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the final image size is not usually known at the time of taking a photograph, it is common to assume a standard size such as 25 cm width, along with a conventional final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, which is 1/1250 of the image width. Conventions in terms of the diagonal measure are also commonly used. The DoF computed using these conventions will need to be adjusted if the original image is cropped before enlarging to the final image size, or if the size and viewing assumptions are altered.

Using the so-called “Zeiss formula” the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.024 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results

NOTE all the gotchas.... and ass-umes....

I have no problem with people debating the issue, but plllleeease stop with the weird colored print. It's very irritating to read to the point where I refuse to look at any postings that use it. So your point is lost

jeffkrol · 10-29-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Alan 2

I have no problem with people debating the issue, but plllleeease stop with the weird colored print. It's very irritating to read to the point where I refuse to look at any postings that use it. So your point is lost

I use the color to seperate my words from quotes. I thought color is easier to delineate the difference.............
At dp review I usually would use dots as in (would you read it in italics and underlined???) EDIT: No italics, they ar more irritating then color
..................................................
"Edit: I should also add that changing sensor size at fixed f-stop to change the diffraction spot size relative to frame height, is really trading off DOF against diffraction effects. If you want a given DOF, the size of the diffraction spot will the the same relative to frame size; the two go together to a first approximation. Of course, it may be that the lens doesn't go fast enough on a small sensor to give the same DOF of a big sensor, but that's another issue. But given that one has chosen the DOF, that selects the f-stop (differently for different sized sensors), and the only remaining issue (apart from those of more noise on smaller sensors) is resolution, and for that, more MP is always better."..........................................

Re: The common misconception is not a misconception after enlargement: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

For those inclined to debate DOF/COC/ and the benefits of sensor size/pixel density I heartily recommend searching dpreview for Emil Martinec, John Sheehy, Gordon Goodman, Illiah Borg, Julia Borg and a host of others equally impressive and way more learned then me.....
I just try to condense it and present it. It is more valid then me just stating "Most do not need full frame, most need more pixels and better parts for the current technology (ie low noise ADC's, better cleaner circuits) and more artistic skill" or "just create with what you have and stop whining"

You people are reinventing the wheel here........

10-26-2008, 05:08 AM	#33
torge Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hamburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 199	tailor it to the same market as the film 645 ... ... and I'd be very tempted to buy one! This would meen it has to be: 1. very affordable compared to other MF digital options 2. compact 3. rugged 4. relatively fast (for MF that is) It should definitely work with the existing line-up of 645 lenses. Might only need a wider wide angle due to crop factor. Exiting times (again?), Torge

10-29-2008, 10:51 AM	#42
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by falconeye When does this urban legend stop to be posted? DoF (for a given FoV) is a function of the physical diameter in mm of the aperture -- ONLY! The more glass, the more shallow DoF is possible. It is not, I repeat, N.O.T., a function of the sensor format. Except, of course, that lenses for larger formats can have, and tend to have more glass. But large lenses exist for small sensors, as well. Urban Legend...NOT!! There were several extensive discussions of this issue within the last couple of months here on this forum. From those discussions, I seem to remember circle of confusion (CoC) being part of the DOF calculation. I also recall that CoC is dependent on detection media size. If you really want to get sticky, the final display/print size and viewing distance can also factor in. Those in doubt can simply go to one or more of the DOF calculators available on the Web: Online Depth of Field Calculator Julian's Lens Calculator (Also does FOV and magnification) Or, if you don't like either of the above, click here for an exhaustive list! Google DOF Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 10-29-2008 at 11:00 AM.

10-29-2008, 01:55 PM	#43
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by stevebrot Urban Legend...NOT!! There were several extensive discussions of this issue within the last couple of months here on this forum. From those discussions, I seem to remember circle of confusion (CoC) being part of the DOF calculation. I also recall that CoC is dependent on detection media size. If you really want to get sticky, the final display/print size and viewing distance can also factor in. Those in doubt can simply go to one or more of the DOF calculators available on the Web: Online Depth of Field Calculator Julian's Lens Calculator (Also does FOV and magnification) Or, if you don't like either of the above, click here for an exhaustive list! Google DOF ....................... Steve Nope urban legend............... Depth of field formulae derived from geometrical optics imply that any arbitrary DoF can be achieved by using a sufficiently small CoC................. Note nothing about sensor size Circle of confusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Since the final image size is not usually known at the time of taking a photograph, it is common to assume a standard size such as 25 cm width, along with a conventional final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, which is 1/1250 of the image width. Conventions in terms of the diagonal measure are also commonly used. The DoF computed using these conventions will need to be adjusted if the original image is cropped before enlarging to the final image size, or if the size and viewing assumptions are altered. Using the so-called “Zeiss formula” the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.024 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results NOTE all the gotchas.... and ass-umes.... Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-29-2008 at 02:00 PM.

10-26-2008, 04:23 AM	#31
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	From time to time, when the topic pops up why or if digital MF is superior, I make the following reference: Look up some fine art nude website (like Hegre Art) and study the samples. They are from digital MF, normally Hasselblad, and present the rare chance to study images made by this kind of camera in (almost) full size (Adam deleted links to such images I posted in the past so I won't do it now). Tell me if you could produce similiar photos with a smaller format sensor? By similiar, I mean similiar in quality, not style

10-26-2008, 04:28 AM	#32
vinzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Philippines Posts: 1,399	Originally posted by Boucicaut I am definitely interested in a digital MF, much more so than in a full format digital. Price has to be right, however, because I'm a hobbyist. A bare bones digital MF with weather sealing would be IDEAL. No frills, bells and whistles for me please. And, please, give us a tilt/shift lens too! Regards, Boucicaut How about we lump in in-body stabilization as well? The technology's already there, just a few tweaks to adapt it for MF (or FF).

10-26-2008, 06:54 AM	#34
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by falconeye Look up some fine art nude website (like Hegre Art) and study the samples. They are from digital MF, normally Hasselblad, and present the rare chance to study images made by this kind of camera in (almost) full size Well, I sort of loose interest in what camera has been used when looking at that sort of images....

10-26-2008, 06:58 AM	#35
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by torge ... It should definitely work with the existing line-up of 645 lenses. Might only need a wider wide angle due to crop factor. Torge Any significant crop factor will cause problems in my opinion. Apart from whine about FF (645 FF that is), the lens line isn't really large enough. You will end up with strange focal lenghts and obvious holes; popular focal lenghts that simply are missing. And there will be no strong or super wide angle. A 645 28mm/4.5 lens would be extremely hard to design and extremely expensive and have a huge front diametre.

10-26-2008, 10:22 AM	#36
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Well, I sort of loose interest in what camera has been used when looking at that sort of images.... Exactly what I say ... the photographs speak for themselves BTW, Petter Hegre is a Norwegian photographer. Is he known in Norway?

10-27-2008, 05:06 PM	#37
24X36NOW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: CT, USA Posts: 498	Nope, no interest in medium format. Lots of interest in FF 35mm dSLR. Lots of comments regarding "affordable" here, sounds like limited practical interest, since it's unlikely to be cheap if they do make a MF.

10-29-2008, 08:28 AM	#38
Photomy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 174	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Shallow DOF is a read herring. One in a million published images have very thin DOF and most of those would be better without it. The main problem with MF, and particularly landscape photographers, is too little DOF. Many type of images i impossible to shoot with MF because you cannot get the whole subject in focus. I rarely shoot wider than F:16 on my MF camera for a reason. The main reason for large formats "popularity" is that it gives you more DOF than MF due to the tilting function. Are wedding and portrait photos considered published images? I guess not, however, they are very important to the people that are making a living from this business. Shallow DOF is desired for this arena. How many photographers make a living from wedding and portrait photography as compared to landscape photography? Personally I enjoy and do both types so have more than one type of camera. Of course have to agree with your comment regarding the challenge for increased DOF for many landscape shots.

10-29-2008, 09:11 AM	#39
inuafrj Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Philippines Posts: 18	hmm.. i'm leaning towards 35mm FF more than MF.. I'll probably invest in old 35mm lenses as well (just in case Pentax decides to make an FF DSLR).

10-29-2008, 10:02 AM	#40
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Photomy the challenge for increased DOF When does this urban legend stop to be posted? DoF (for a given FoV) is a function of the physical diameter in mm of the aperture -- ONLY! The more glass, the more shallow DoF is possible. It is not, I repeat, N.O.T., a function of the sensor format. Except, of course, that lenses for larger formats can have, and tend to have more glass. But large lenses exist for small sensors, as well.

10-29-2008, 10:17 AM	#41
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Pål Jensen Any significant crop factor will cause problems in my opinion. Apart from whine about FF (645 FF that is), the lens line isn't really large enough. You will end up with strange focal lenghts and obvious holes; popular focal lenghts that simply are missing. And there will be no strong or super wide angle. A 645 28mm/4.5 lens would be extremely hard to design and extremely expensive and have a huge front diametre. Didn't stop Mamiya from making one for their new MF digital camera. Yeah, it costs a bunch (around 5k) but it isn't that huge for a MF lens.

10-29-2008, 02:13 PM	#44
Alan 2 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Madison WI U.S.A. Posts: 60	Originally posted by jeffkrol Nope urban legend............... Depth of field formulae derived from geometrical optics imply that any arbitrary DoF can be achieved by using a sufficiently small CoC................. Note nothing about sensor size Circle of confusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Since the final image size is not usually known at the time of taking a photograph, it is common to assume a standard size such as 25 cm width, along with a conventional final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, which is 1/1250 of the image width. Conventions in terms of the diagonal measure are also commonly used. The DoF computed using these conventions will need to be adjusted if the original image is cropped before enlarging to the final image size, or if the size and viewing assumptions are altered. Using the so-called “Zeiss formula” the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.024 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results NOTE all the gotchas.... and ass-umes.... I have no problem with people debating the issue, but plllleeease stop with the weird colored print. It's very irritating to read to the point where I refuse to look at any postings that use it. So your point is lost

10-29-2008, 03:07 PM	#45
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by Alan 2 I have no problem with people debating the issue, but plllleeease stop with the weird colored print. It's very irritating to read to the point where I refuse to look at any postings that use it. So your point is lost I use the color to seperate my words from quotes. I thought color is easier to delineate the difference............. At dp review I usually would use dots as in (would you read it in italics and underlined???) EDIT: No italics, they ar more irritating then color .................................................. "Edit: I should also add that changing sensor size at fixed f-stop to change the diffraction spot size relative to frame height, is really trading off DOF against diffraction effects. If you want a given DOF, the size of the diffraction spot will the the same relative to frame size; the two go together to a first approximation. Of course, it may be that the lens doesn't go fast enough on a small sensor to give the same DOF of a big sensor, but that's another issue. But given that one has chosen the DOF, that selects the f-stop (differently for different sized sensors), and the only remaining issue (apart from those of more noise on smaller sensors) is resolution, and for that, more MP is always better.".......................................... Re: The common misconception is not a misconception after enlargement: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review For those inclined to debate DOF/COC/ and the benefits of sensor size/pixel density I heartily recommend searching dpreview for Emil Martinec, John Sheehy, Gordon Goodman, Illiah Borg, Julia Borg and a host of others equally impressive and way more learned then me..... I just try to condense it and present it. It is more valid then me just stating "Most do not need full frame, most need more pixels and better parts for the current technology (ie low noise ADC's, better cleaner circuits) and more artistic skill" or "just create with what you have and stop whining" You people are reinventing the wheel here........