[normhead]

normhead: There is a very considerable difference in imaging quality from 35mm to MF; typically a MF frame is 400% bigger, and fundamental to that size is the inherent resolution. But if you never print any bigger than a postcard in 35mm, no, it would make zero difference, but that's not to blithely dismiss the capability of MF.

Digital medium format is the preserve of those who are accomplished in MF analogue and can apply foundation skills and experience to the digital form to expediate their specific workflow. There is zero benefit to amateurs in buying such an expensive MF digital camera as a 'first step' up from the smaller and easily mastered 35mm formats and the more technically challenging MF analogue formats. There are less financially catastrophic means of gaining experience than investment in a camera that requires a lot of experience and skill as a prerequisite.

Boy oh, boy, I'll brief..
A 645D is about twice the size of APS-c, and about 70% bigger than FF, the film era dynamics have been altered.
I print to 30" by 20" at the moment... and I still can't see MF making that much difference.
I've trained on Large format and owned two different 645 systems, I might know what I'm getting into. I'm not really looking to gain experience,
TO me MF is FF on steroids, but still has all the limitations of FF with very few advantages except for resolution and overall IQ. But, if you're not going to shoot APS-c, IMHO going to a 645D might be a step back, you're losing a lot of portability and functionality. Unless you're a landscape genius like MikeMF then you might find an 645D limiting. And even for MikSF, I wonder if he knows how much he'd love tilt shift.

The difference between Ansel Adams image of the half dome and what we see posted on the forum all the time, is resolution, and tilt shift.

Have you ever used a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera?

Yes, each format has different skill requirements.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

I think it's only those of us who trained on or use large format that really comprehend the limits FF and MF impose on your shooting style. Most are coming from a back ground where when they get a FF, it will be the largest format they've ever used.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-07-2014 at 01:27 PM.

[tuco]

...
I've trained on Large format and owned two different 645 systems,

Can you elaborate. Have you shot more than 50 sheets on that large format and shot more than 50 rolls of film on those 645s?

[normhead]

Can you elaborate. Have you shot more than 50 sheets on that large format and shot more than 50 rolls of film on those 645s?

Are you going to discuss what I've thrown out there as information or is this going to be about me? You're changing the topic. I was responding to the quote above, where I got the condescending " I know so much more than you" treatment, as if i was ignorant. My answer is, I'm not. I'm simply not willing to get into a pissing match about who has done what, when it means less than nothing.

Talking about old experiences is often something better done over a beer.

But if you have something to add based on your knowledge of MF and LF, I'd be happy to hear it, and with either will be happy to seriously consider your opinions, as I always do.

( It's not relevant, but probably less than 500 exposures of sheet film, but , that's misleading because when you use that kind of film, and with the kinds of things I was doing and the studio I was working in, it can take two hours to set up a shot. So the best answer is 240 hours studio time with the 8x10, and 240 hours darkroom time working on large format images, not to mention retouching class (20 hours) and the 120 hours of lectures time that preceded the 240 hours in the studio. That's just commercial. There was a portrait a week in the portraiture class, one sitting a week for 35 weeks, god that's at least 120 8x10s right there.We did portfolios for the theatre students, so, head shot, half body sitting, full body sitting and full body front and back standing.) Is that enough? Do I pass?, oh and if you want to know my whole life story, I didn't go back for second year.

I was also on student council, helped set up the funding and construction of a 8 story 400 unit student co-op residence, and was known as "the kid", because at Ryerson most of the students were university graduates learning a useful skill, where as i was 17 years old straight out of high school. ( I couldn't go out with the guys for a beer after class, that should have been part of the curriculum for pete's sake. Although I did pick up a lot of what was discussed the next day,) At the time it was the only accredited full time photography program in Canada.

I had to approached 21-24 year old women to ask if I could take their portraits. I was an ext extemely immature 17 year old, it terrified me. I lost sleep at night over it.

I got in with a portfolio taken with my dad's 6x6 twin lens reflex, and developed in the darkroom, he had set up in our basement. I started working with him when I was six years old, (1954) and I still remember the first time he let me look down throughout the waste level viewfinder, focus and release the shutter. My shots were thought to be quite artistic, mostly because they were taken from such a low angle (because I was 6 years old, shooting with a waste level finder. To do eye level portraits I had to stand on a ladder, or more often, a picnic table.) My goodness, I actually shot my first couple of rolls of MF film (120) before I was 7. I shot with his camera (MF) from the time I was 7 until i was 17), when I got a Pentax SV 35mm with a light meter, for getting accepted into Ryerson Polytech.I would have had a Spotmatic, but I had to buy a light meter for studio class anyway so ,my parents felt getting one in camera would have been wasteful and redundant. It was redundant too, my dad taught me to estimate exposure without a light meter, so I really didn't need one/ I had the "light meter in your brain" system. Beat that.

At this point I usually start telling stories.... you, know the beer in the developer, the hopeless sketching assignment, the various lenses I converted into enlarger lenses with cardboard cutouts, my buddies underwater rig, .how my friends hated my "artistic vision" and often complained bitterly about the same pictures that got me into Ryerson.. taking my 8x10 gear on the subway to photograph an old church (keeping your parallel lines parallel assignment with full tilt shift mode.. I think I still have a contact print of that church somewhere, but I'd have to shrink it to post it here.

I'm leaving out 15 years of teaching HS photography, bit of modelling, the three times I was published, my favourite picture of all time, a portrait I took of my dad, for the cover of his auto-biography, about 5 years before his death.

There, do I get my beer?)

PS... is that elaborate enough?
I bet you never ask me to elaborate again.

[NZ_Ross]

There, do I get my beer?)

Virtual beer to you from NZ - but it will probably taste different to what you are used to

PS... is that elaborate enough?

I am starting to love this thread - learnt a whole lot of stuff just right there......

I bet you never ask me to elaborate again.

I reckon you have only just got started...

But it does beg the question - do you REALLY know about medium format or large format - I mean, does anyone, really??????

[tuco]

There, do I get my beer?)

Yes, you do!

[DSims]

Have you shot more than 50 sheets on that large format and shot more than 50 rolls of film on those 645s?

I have it on good faith that Norm's shot 51 rolls. After roll 49 I was amazed at the understanding, insight, and maturity he suddenly gained.

[Hakusan]

Have you ever used a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera?

Yes, each format has different skill requirements.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.

Yup, I have used 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras.

[OregonJim]

I came across an interesting statement from DxO Labs:

"Note:The image quality of All Medium format cameras have been surpassed by certain Full frame DSLR in February 2012 and no significant different of the image quality among Full frame DSLR, Full frame compact camera and Full frame MILC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs

[Hakusan]

I came across an interesting statement from DxO Labs:

"Note:The image quality of All Medium format cameras have been surpassed by certain Full frame DSLR in February 2012 and no significant different of the image quality among Full frame DSLR, Full frame compact camera and Full frame MILC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs

Not surprising. It might be useful to note that DxO mark scores do not factor in the spatial or resolution characteristics of sensors.

[Sperdynamite]

Lack of interest? Maybe in the enthusiast world but I already know one of my wedding photographer friends who has one on order. I'll put down an order myself if I meet a certain number of booked jobs soon. I've said it before, the thing could be 16mp and I wouldn't care. Anything bigger than 135 helps me frame my subjects the way I have it pictured in my head. That's why I love my 67II with the 105mm 2.4. I can get reasonably close to that look with the 75mm 2.8 on a D/Z sensor, and now I get ISO 3200/6400?! With AF that's decent? Hells yes. Oh and it's only $295 a month on a lease from B&H, and that's assuming I put NO money down. One wedding is more than that on film, actually quite a bit more.

Uncle bob is running around my receptions with L glass and a 5D Mark III. He will not be running around with a 645Z. Clients notice these things. It's dumb, but it's true.

The right people are stoked about the 645Z. This is a low volume product anyway, so you're not going to see Sony A7 furvor. That's sort of like asking, why the lack of interest in the Hasselblad H5D-50 and Phase One IQ250?

[DSims]

I came across an interesting statement from DxO Labs:

"Note:The image quality of All Medium format cameras have been surpassed by certain Full frame DSLR in February 2012 and no significant different of the image quality among Full frame DSLR, Full frame compact camera and Full frame MILC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs

It would be much better to quote from DxO's own website, since others can edit this Wikipedia page. This may not accurately represent DxO's own thoughts or wording.


Image Quality appears to be very narrowly defined here. It doesn't include all the aspects most people (including non-photographers) would account for. It's apparently based on their proprietary formulas for what makes sensors of different sizes "equivalent," and it has little to do with the overall appearance of the final output.

[normhead]

I came across an interesting statement from DxO Labs:

"Note:The image quality of All Medium format cameras have been surpassed by certain Full frame DSLR in February 2012 and no significant different of the image quality among Full frame DSLR, Full frame compact camera and Full frame MILC"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs

Not according to Imagine resource, nothing they've tested except a 645D captured all the detail in one of their test images. Neither the D800 nor the A7r, so as usual, DxO haven't got a clue what they're going on about. They are really good at trumpeting their findings about how great they are, but it's all baseless self promotion done on a mind boggling scale.

[Sperdynamite]

It would be much better to quote from DxO's own website, since others can edit this Wikipedia page. This may not accurately represent DxO's own thoughts or wording.


Image Quality appears to be very narrowly defined here. It doesn't include all the aspects most people (including non-photographers) would account for. It's apparently based on their proprietary formulas for what makes sensors of different sizes "equivalent," and it has little to do with the overall appearance of the final output.

I am so sick of hearing the term 'image quality' constantly. It's so meaningless in the wider world of photography and grossly misleading. Can DxO review my polaroids so I know I have the right IQ? That would be so helpful.

[tuco]

It would be much better to quote from DxO's own website, since others can edit this Wikipedia page. This may not accurately represent DxO's own thoughts or wording.


Image Quality appears to be very narrowly defined here.

I think too that Wikipeda article also assumes (incorrectly) DXO's score, which is a factor of three things, equals "image quality". Clearly, a CCD sensor will fall short on the sports ISO measurement compared to a CMOS and therefore could get a lower overall score but that has nothing to do with the resulting IQ at base ISO perhaps to anyone actually taking pictures. So read that article with a grain of salt.

[DSims]

Not according to Imagine resource, nothing they've tested except a 645D captured all the detail in one of their test images. Neither the D800 nor the A7r, so as usual, DxO haven't got a clue what they're going on about.

I think too that Wikipeda article also assumes (incorrectly) DXO's score, which is a factor of three things, equals "image quality". Clearly, a CCD sensor will fall short on the sports ISO measurement compared to a CMOS and therefore could get a lower overall score but that has nothing to do with the resulting IQ at base ISO perhaps to anyone actually taking pictures. So read that article with a grain of salt.

In further support of both your comments, DPR (ironically, a partner of DxO) has used the Phase One IQ180 (80MP) back as the "benchmark camera" in their studio IQ test scenes for a while now. Nothing else even comes close in resolution and detail, including on real-world objects. And I believe it's superior in other areas as well. The best FF camera can't even come close to the best MF camera. To suggest that they're equal is laughable.

Whether MF is appropriate for a given application is open to question, as always. But they're not only clearly different, they're clearly better in many ways.