Medium Format Look

halimj7 · 12-12-2017, 11:17 PM - **1 Like**

Bismillah

Is there such a thing as "the Medium Format Look" and does the 645d have a unique look not attainable on the K1? Does anyone have any pics that demonstrate their answer to the question? Thanks.

Jonathan Mac · 12-12-2017, 11:57 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by halimj7

Bismillah

Is there such a thing as "the Medium Format Look" and does the 645d have a unique look not attainable on the K1? Does anyone have any pics that demonstrate their answer to the question? Thanks.

This is very debatable. Medium format offers two aspects to images that are harder to obtain with smaller formats - an increase in resolution & dynamic range and a reduced depth of field. Both can be reproduced (at least to some degree) with smaller formats by stitching together a number of shots, and the reduced depth of field may even be obtainable from a single shot of a smaller format if the lens used is sharp/provides high resolution at it's widest apertures.

I've seen images that have a medium format look but which were taken with smaller formats and plenty of images which lack a specific medium format look but which were taken on medium format. It depends on the scene, the equipment used and the way in which it's used.

Ken Pimontel · 12-13-2017, 12:36 AM - **1 Like**

When used specifically for the look, there is a definite difference.

**Alex645** · 12-13-2017, 12:43 AM - **1 Like**

Absolutely. Here is a typical 645 shot with the monochrome image shot on Kodak Ektar 100, 75mm @ f/2.8 wide open. The color image is the same lens wide open but Fujichrome Velvia 100 and obviously cropped square.

To me, it's a combination of format, resolution, depth-of-field, tonal range, and color rendering.

To some degree, 645 film is not the same as 645D or 645Z, but they are more closely related than FF.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

Last edited by Alex645; 12-13-2017 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Added color example.

Adam · 12-13-2017, 12:50 AM - **3 Likes**

Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera

That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself.

**Alex645** · 12-13-2017, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera

That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself.

Touché Adam. And to that I'd add the lens is secondly the most important factor.

One reason I've kept and used my 645 all these years is because I haven't found lenses that render like the SMC Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 or 75mm f/2.8 primes.

D1N0 · 12-13-2017, 02:34 AM

I feel larger formats are especially good for environmental shots. You feel more present in the picture because you can get closer than with the same focal length on smaller formats. The same goes for the difference between aps-c and full frame. It is just not the same as using a different focal length. To me it makes shots taken with a larger sensor feel less condensed and more open and airy.

Na Horuk · 12-13-2017, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself.

Yes, this is a big one! Especially because most people who buy a 645 camera are usually already successful photographers. Nobody spends so much money on their first camera; only people who know what they need would buy a 645.
You can check the threads like these:
Post your medium format photos! - Page 747 - PentaxForums.com

Post your K-1 pictures! - Page 901 - PentaxForums.com

Bigger sensor means more "air" in the photo. The Depth of field relative to the magnification seems smaller and makes the photo seem more "intimate". And Medium format cameras have good sensor with wide dynamic range and good colours.

But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that.
The next level are view cameras or technical cameras. Even more expensive, even more difficult to use, but they can give stunning results in the right hands. And terrible results in the wrong hands!

**baro-nite** · 12-13-2017, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that.
The next level are view cameras or technical cameras. Even more expensive, even more difficult to use, but they can give stunning results in the right hands. And terrible results in the wrong hands!

Bigger, heavier, slower, yes. But my 645N is maybe the easiest camera to use that I own. The size helps -- the huge viewfinder makes framing shots very easy. The metering is accurate, so put the camera in Av or Tv and it is point and shoot. Not quite a bare-bones camera but pretty close, and that simplicity is part of why the camera is so easy to use.

And I agree about view cameras -- not so easy to use, with many ways to completely ruin the shot.

To the OP's question about the medium format "look", the Pentax 67 with 105/2.4 lens wide open is so popular because it indeed does have a "look" you can't get on small format (without stitching). Taking this even further, this is why the Aero Ektar 7" f/2.5 large-format lens is so coveted.

leekil · 12-13-2017, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that.

The 645Z has the same features and interface as the K-3 or K-1, doesn't it, with only minor variations?

halimj7 · 12-13-2017, 12:25 PM

Bismillah

Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D?

Na Horuk · 12-13-2017, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by halimj7

Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D?

Well, clearly every person that spends so much money on a 645 camera believes there is a reason why its better than a much cheaper K-3II or K-1. But some of us don't

Depends on budget and photographic needs!
Some people use the Brenizer method to simulate larger format look

**Alex645** · 12-13-2017, 01:00 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by halimj7

Bismillah

Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D?

Close? Yes. The same? No. K-1 (and 645Z) uses a CMOS sensor and the 645D is a CCD which has its pros and cons.

I appreciate the benefits of FF over APS-C and to some degree you can replicate one to look like the other, but there are limits. Same with 645 vs. FF.

I shoot all three because they all have their pros and cons, and when I shoot one, I'm using it for its strengths and not try to make it look like something it isn't. Same when I shoot film vs. digital.

halimj7 · 12-13-2017, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Alex645

Close? Yes. The same? No. K-1 (and 645Z) uses a CMOS sensor and the 645D is a CCD which has its pros and cons.

I appreciate the benefits of FF over APS-C and to some degree you can replicate one to look like the other, but there are limits. Same with 645 vs. FF.

I shoot all three because they all have their pros and cons, and when I shoot one, I'm using it for its strengths and not try to make it look like something it isn't. Same when I shoot film vs. digital.

Bismillah

Thanks for your response. What benefits might I see for a 645D CCD in still photography vs a CMOS?

**Alex645** · 12-13-2017, 01:37 PM

Sony, Canon, and all the sensor manufacturers have pretty much all switched to CMOS because it costs less to produce and they are able to get very high ISO sensitivity with it. Ignoring technical arguments and comparisons, those who still prefer CCD usually cite that they prefer the color rendering, saturation, vibrancy, and tonality of CCD.

Anyone out there have both a CCD and CMOS APS-C or the 645D and 645Z to post an apples to apples comparison?

12-12-2017, 11:17 PM - 1 Like	#1
halimj7 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 76	Medium Format Look Bismillah Is there such a thing as "the Medium Format Look" and does the 645d have a unique look not attainable on the K1? Does anyone have any pics that demonstrate their answer to the question? Thanks.

12-13-2017, 12:36 AM - 1 Like	#3
Ken Pimontel Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 42	Yes there is. When used specifically for the look, there is a definite difference. Attached Images

12-13-2017, 12:50 AM - 3 Likes	#5
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your non-pentax medium-format and large-format pictures	DenisG	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	12-07-2020 08:02 PM
Fuji Medium Format Camera to be announced on September 19	interested_observer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	35	09-14-2016 05:29 AM
Professional Video moving from crop to "medium format"	beholder3	Photographic Industry and Professionals	3	02-27-2016 05:46 PM
more lakeside pano's plus a look through a medium format viewfinder	little laker	Post Your Photos!	10	11-11-2007 07:37 PM

12-12-2017, 11:57 PM - 2 Likes	#2
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,911	Originally posted by halimj7 Bismillah Is there such a thing as "the Medium Format Look" and does the 645d have a unique look not attainable on the K1? Does anyone have any pics that demonstrate their answer to the question? Thanks. This is very debatable. Medium format offers two aspects to images that are harder to obtain with smaller formats - an increase in resolution & dynamic range and a reduced depth of field. Both can be reproduced (at least to some degree) with smaller formats by stitching together a number of shots, and the reduced depth of field may even be obtainable from a single shot of a smaller format if the lens used is sharp/provides high resolution at it's widest apertures. I've seen images that have a medium format look but which were taken with smaller formats and plenty of images which lack a specific medium format look but which were taken on medium format. It depends on the scene, the equipment used and the way in which it's used.

12-13-2017, 01:14 AM	#6
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,527	Originally posted by Adam Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself. Touché Adam. And to that I'd add the lens is secondly the most important factor. One reason I've kept and used my 645 all these years is because I haven't found lenses that render like the SMC Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 or 75mm f/2.8 primes.

12-13-2017, 02:34 AM	#7
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	I feel larger formats are especially good for environmental shots. You feel more present in the picture because you can get closer than with the same focal length on smaller formats. The same goes for the difference between aps-c and full frame. It is just not the same as using a different focal length. To me it makes shots taken with a larger sensor feel less condensed and more open and airy.

12-13-2017, 07:43 AM	#8
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by Adam Let's not forget the importance of the person behind the camera That's at least as big of a factor as the gear itself. Yes, this is a big one! Especially because most people who buy a 645 camera are usually already successful photographers. Nobody spends so much money on their first camera; only people who know what they need would buy a 645. You can check the threads like these: Post your medium format photos! - Page 747 - PentaxForums.com Post your K-1 pictures! - Page 901 - PentaxForums.com Bigger sensor means more "air" in the photo. The Depth of field relative to the magnification seems smaller and makes the photo seem more "intimate". And Medium format cameras have good sensor with wide dynamic range and good colours. But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that. The next level are view cameras or technical cameras. Even more expensive, even more difficult to use, but they can give stunning results in the right hands. And terrible results in the wrong hands!

12-13-2017, 08:13 AM	#9
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,295	Originally posted by Na Horuk But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that. The next level are view cameras or technical cameras. Even more expensive, even more difficult to use, but they can give stunning results in the right hands. And terrible results in the wrong hands! Bigger, heavier, slower, yes. But my 645N is maybe the easiest camera to use that I own. The size helps -- the huge viewfinder makes framing shots very easy. The metering is accurate, so put the camera in Av or Tv and it is point and shoot. Not quite a bare-bones camera but pretty close, and that simplicity is part of why the camera is so easy to use. And I agree about view cameras -- not so easy to use, with many ways to completely ruin the shot. To the OP's question about the medium format "look", the Pentax 67 with 105/2.4 lens wide open is so popular because it indeed does have a "look" you can't get on small format (without stitching). Taking this even further, this is why the Aero Ektar 7" f/2.5 large-format lens is so coveted.

12-13-2017, 10:49 AM	#10
leekil Pentaxian Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 2,003	Originally posted by Na Horuk But! The Medium format cameras are really not that easy to use. They are bigger, heavier, slower and they don't have as many features as current APSC and FF cameras. MF cameras are "bare essentials", but they excel in that. The 645Z has the same features and interface as the K-3 or K-1, doesn't it, with only minor variations?

12-13-2017, 12:25 PM	#11
halimj7 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 76 Original Poster	Bismillah Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D?

12-13-2017, 12:42 PM	#12
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by halimj7 Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D? Well, clearly every person that spends so much money on a 645 camera believes there is a reason why its better than a much cheaper K-3II or K-1. But some of us don't Depends on budget and photographic needs! Some people use the Brenizer method to simulate larger format look

12-13-2017, 01:00 PM - 1 Like	#13
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,527	Originally posted by halimj7 Bismillah Do you all think that full frame (specifically the K1) is able to replicate the Medium Format look (specifically the 645D)? Resolution is close, depth of field is arguably equal, so for me that leaves color reproduction. Is color reproduction better than the 645D? Close? Yes. The same? No. K-1 (and 645Z) uses a CMOS sensor and the 645D is a CCD which has its pros and cons. I appreciate the benefits of FF over APS-C and to some degree you can replicate one to look like the other, but there are limits. Same with 645 vs. FF. I shoot all three because they all have their pros and cons, and when I shoot one, I'm using it for its strengths and not try to make it look like something it isn't. Same when I shoot film vs. digital.

12-13-2017, 01:24 PM	#14
halimj7 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 76 Original Poster	Originally posted by Alex645 Close? Yes. The same? No. K-1 (and 645Z) uses a CMOS sensor and the 645D is a CCD which has its pros and cons. I appreciate the benefits of FF over APS-C and to some degree you can replicate one to look like the other, but there are limits. Same with 645 vs. FF. I shoot all three because they all have their pros and cons, and when I shoot one, I'm using it for its strengths and not try to make it look like something it isn't. Same when I shoot film vs. digital. Bismillah Thanks for your response. What benefits might I see for a 645D CCD in still photography vs a CMOS?

12-13-2017, 01:37 PM	#15
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,527	Sony, Canon, and all the sensor manufacturers have pretty much all switched to CMOS because it costs less to produce and they are able to get very high ISO sensitivity with it. Ignoring technical arguments and comparisons, those who still prefer CCD usually cite that they prefer the color rendering, saturation, vibrancy, and tonality of CCD. Anyone out there have both a CCD and CMOS APS-C or the 645D and 645Z to post an apples to apples comparison?