[clackers]

The photographs posted here in the K1 section are great. The photographs posted here in the MF section are even greater, with some rare exceptions depending on the interest of the photographer.

I gotta level, in BigMackCam's thread on how you would spend thousands of dollars assigned to you on gear, I worked into the budget a used 645Z, FA35, FA75, FA 120mm Macro.

A boy can dream, right?

[biz-engineer]

Great equipment does not make up for bad technique

Yes, I just read your post after responding.

[Hattifnatt]

Obviously, the big difference has to do with the skill of the photographers.

It's the skill of the photographers for sure.

At the moment I am using a K-1 to take photos because I enjoy photography but I don't actively try to get better. Of course over the years I learn new things and tricks and sometimes step outside the comfort zone but I would say the improvements are incremental and very slow. The K-1 is probably my upper limit meaning I would not buy any higher ranked camera just for the purpose of doing the same things I'm doing now. The only scenario where I can see myself upgrading to medium format is that where I decide to step up my game, actively try to improve and learn new things and overall put a lot more effort into photography. Most likely I will have better results and better pictures as a result of putting more work into it, not just switching to medium format. I suspect some photographers go down this road where switching to medium format is also correlated with an effort to improve their skills.

Or I can just win the lottery and go medium format just because I can afford it. But in this case I doubt the quality of my pictures will change too much.

[biz-engineer]

I gotta level, in BigMackCam's thread on how you would spend thousands of dollars assigned to you on gear, I worked into the budget a used 645Z, FA35, FA75, FA 120mm Macro.

Lots of lenses aren't required. Only two lenses: for the 645z, 28-45 for landscapes and 120 macro for portraits? for the GFX: 32-64 f4 for landscapes and 110 f2 for portrait.

[clackers]

Lots of lenses aren't required. Only two lenses: for the 645z, 28-45 for landscapes and 120 macro for portraits? for the GFX: 32-64 f4 for landscapes and 110 f2 for portrait.

Yeah, the 28-45 was too expensive to fit in the parameters of Mike's exercise, but of course it'd be the one to go for. AW, OIS, ED glass, etc.

[Lowell Goudge]

A very long time ago, before the K1 there were a lot of complaints about not having a full frame and being able to take the "dreamy" shots with wonderful bokeh of an 85/1.4

The issue really was that they didn't know how to use their lenses and how DOF and bokeh really worked and as a result could only copy what others were doing.

Knowing gear is paramount on any format, and I suspect as others have mentioned if you are going into MF you better take the time to learn it all just because of the cost.

The K1 and other low cost full frame cameras are as others have said bad for the quality of photos, because not every one who can afford one knows really what to do with it

My k1 just received at Christmas cost only $100 more than my *IstD 15 years ago. I still need to figure out whether I use my K1 or K5 for any given event

[zzeitg]

My k1 just received at Christmas cost only $100 more than my *IstD 15 years ago.

Well, that does not mean that K-1 is cheap. That should be understood as the positive result of technical progress. (Consider the price of 1TB SSD drive now and some years ago (well, that size was not even existing...).)

If there's some kind of photo surplus production, then it origins from the cheap compact cameras, which are hardly able (for the sake of crappy parameters) to provide some interesting shots.

[sutherland]

Price also plays a role in weeding out the casual consumers for serious enthusiasts and pros. I never used or even handled a Medium Format camera, but reviewing a crop of images (produced by individuals that know what they are doing), Medium Format images tend to have a bit more 'pop' and detail. That said, I bet a K-1, in the hands of an experienced professional, would produce very similar results or at least trick many of us.

In all my years of being a hobbyist in photography, I've only ventured past APS-C once with the brief ownership of the D750 (Nikon Full Frame). Within my brief period of owning and using the D750, I appreciated the quality of images captured in low light. Other attributes like, Dynamic Range and Color Depth were really wash (or not significant enough to notice/mention). Reviewing sample Raw files of the Pentax KP show that APS-C can be further improved upon in regards to low light performance.

Taking the above into account, it would be interesting to see what could be done with Full Frame to capture some of the favorable output attributes of a Medium Format image or if technology and post processing can push Full Frame further ahead and position Medium Format into an even smaller niche of specialty/skill.

[volley]

I believe that another difference might contribute to the perceived difference in quality between MF and FF shots.
The percentage of shots taken from a tripod might be considerably higher for the MF shots (and this leads to the question if there is a difference in perceived quality beteẃeen FF shots from tripod vs hand held?).
For sure, the modern FF cameras are offering wonderful possibilities to shot handheld. No need to be afraid to use higher ISO, effective SR etc.

But if you look for the best quality a tripod still helps in mainly two ways:

You are free to select the most suitable ISO to get the extra dynamic range and you can select the best aperture for the picture you are looking for.
For me it is even more important that using the tripod will force you to slow down. And if you take the extra effort to set up the tripod, it is more likely that you will also take the time to think a little longer about your composition.

Since I changed to a K1 I find myself using a tripod more often than ever. I might add that the moveable display of the K1 makes using a tripod a pleasure.

ABout 40 years ago I have read an anekdote in one of Andreas Feiniger's great book about photography:
When asked if he had a simple advice how to improve in photography he responded, that the most effective advice to improve your photography is an advice you will most likely not follow. Use a tripod.

[NeverSatisfied]

I would also suggest that people don't all use Flickr the same way. Curating images and preserving a smaller number of works will skew results vs another person sharing their entire output.

So true! One of my Flickr contacts would post shot after unedited shot, of nothing but squirrels. Out of focus? Poor lighting or composition? Who cares! Literally thousands and thousands of squirrel photos. So after seeing this thread, I went over to Flickr- as of today, that guy has 363,000 (!!!) images on Flickr! Today's latest batch? More squirrels! :O

[normhead]

So true! One of my Flickr contacts would post shot after unedited shot, of nothing but squirrels. Out of focus? Poor lighting or composition? Who cares? Literally thousands and thousands of squirrel photos. So after seeing this thread, I went over to Flickr- as of today, that guy has 363,000 (!!!) images on Flickr! Aaannnd, today's latest batch? More squirrels! :O

The spirit of Rupert lives on.

[NeverSatisfied]

The spirit of Rupert lives on.

Ha! For as long as i could stand to look at the guy's photostream, i saw nothing "risqué"! :P

[travelswsage]

When asked if he had a simple advice how to improve in photography he responded, that the most effective advice to improve your photography is an advice you will most likely not follow. Use a tripod.

Wonderful! When younger photographers or folks I meet ask for advice (landscapes) this is what I tell them -- most don't want to hear and very few implement.


I think the initial learning curve for young, diligent photographers is far faster now with the instant feedback that digital allows. There comes a plateau, however, where more is not better, and a slow diligent patience and experimentation is required to become better.


As for the difference between full frame and medium format in digital landscapes you've piqued my interest and if anyone can suggest any medium format photogs (interested in landscapes mainly) to check out I'd love to know …


In the film days, the difference between formats was immense. I had a friend who occasionally joined me on shoots who was always amazed that he could bring over his latest edition of Outdoor Photographer, cover the caption and ask me to guess what format made the image -- I was about 80% accurate between 35mm or not 35mm but only about 50% accurate if he asked me to guess between whether an image was between medium versus large format. There was always a percentage of shots which non-movement cameras of any format simply cannot capture. I've often wondered whether I'd be able to tell today the difference between a shot captured by large format digital camera utilizing movements versus a well captured, well edited full frame shot employing focus stacking or other blending techniques.

[Rondec]

Price also plays a role in weeding out the casual consumers for serious enthusiasts and pros. I never used or even handled a Medium Format camera, but reviewing a crop of images (produced by individuals that know what they are doing), Medium Format images tend to have a bit more 'pop' and detail. That said, I bet a K-1, in the hands of an experienced professional, would produce very similar results or at least trick many of us.

In all my years of being a hobbyist in photography, I've only ventured past APS-C once with the brief ownership of the D750 (Nikon Full Frame). Within my brief period of owning and using the D750, I appreciated the quality of images captured in low light. Other attributes like, Dynamic Range and Color Depth were really wash (or not significant enough to notice/mention). Reviewing sample Raw files of the Pentax KP show that APS-C can be further improved upon in regards to low light performance.

Taking the above into account, it would be interesting to see what could be done with Full Frame to capture some of the favorable output attributes of a Medium Format image or if technology and post processing can push Full Frame further ahead and position Medium Format into an even smaller niche of specialty/skill.

I think this is probably accurate as well. It is the same reason why you might see better photos shot with L lenses than with consumer zooms. Same with DFA * lenses or even FA limiteds compared to the kit lens. Clearly there is something to be said for having better glass, but more often than not, the folks who are willing to invest in top end glass are those who are more interested in photography overall and therefore hopefully have better skills.

But I think the underlying premise of biz-engineer is pretty accurate -- the idea being that with the right composition techniques and lighting and general skill improvements we can do far more to improve our photos than just getting a new camera.

[lesmore49]

I've got some wandering and disjointed thoughts about the subject at hand.

I have a couple of medium format film cameras. The one I used the most was my Mamiya 220 Pro F TLR, 6 X 6. It has a waist level finder . I mostly used my heavy duty Leitz Tilt All tripod, when using it.

I also have a Yashica mat 6X6 TLR camera with a waist level finder.

I found that when using my medium format bodies with the waist level finders...it always worked better for me to have the camera mounted on the tripod, where I could adjust and level the cameras. I also found that when using a relatively large and heavy, awkwardly shaped 'box' like the MF...I tended to take my time and compose photographs more carefully....all while the camera was mounted on the tripod. My Mamiya TLR doesn't have an in camera light meter, which also added to the process time. I'd, compose the picture, then take a light meter reading with my separate hand held meter (another time consuming process) , set the aperture and the leaf shutter, then check the composition once again through the finder, focus and trip the shutter. So for me using my Mamiya, there were a few more processes that I had to perform before I could take a picture, compared to my SLR/DSLR. In addition 120/220 film was more expensive and I tended to budget more when using the MF cameras in the film days.


In contrast, I found my SLR bodies with eye finders much easier to use...they are lighter, I can compose quicker, although not always better and I can take pictures much quicker.

Often I think of a quote by the famous British playwright, George Bernard Shaw made about photography, many years ago.

"A photographer is like a cod, which produces a million eggs in order that one may reach maturity."

When I think of the speed that I use, when (sometimes) taking pictures with my SLR/DSLR...compared to how slowly and with care, I generally photograph using my old large, awkward, heavy Mamiya 220 TLR...for some reason this quote comes to mind,

I know the Pentax 645/ Fuji MF digitals are far removed from my Mamiya, but I wonder if people using MF digital bodies, work slower with these larger cameras.

Using a MF, perched on a tripod generally slows me down, oftentimes providing a better image than I would of got with the ease and convenience a smaller, lighter, possibly some may say...more user friendly ASP-C/Full Frame camera body.