Bill Pierce
Well-known
I downloaded a number of Fujifilm GFX 100 raw files and jpgs from the internet. These large medium format files are capable of making highly detailed large prints. But, in conventionally sized test prints I made on 11x14 paper, a size that does not reveal the finest of subject details, quite a few of the images still showed an improvement in detail and tonality, much like the difference between 35mm film and 120 film.
In the film world this was the result of both the larger film size and the way photographers chose to work with “medium format,” methodically, carefully and often on a tripod. What do you think the reason for improved quality in conventionally sized prints from a “medium format” sensor - sensor size or working more methodically or both?
Do we have any experts that can answer this question. It could be important to someone who was going to spend $10,000 on a camera body.
In the film world this was the result of both the larger film size and the way photographers chose to work with “medium format,” methodically, carefully and often on a tripod. What do you think the reason for improved quality in conventionally sized prints from a “medium format” sensor - sensor size or working more methodically or both?
Do we have any experts that can answer this question. It could be important to someone who was going to spend $10,000 on a camera body.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
I've debated selling my A7RIII (FF 42MP) for a GFX50R (MF 51MP) as I like to print large, at least 16x24 or 24x36 and from my experience, I couldn't notice any major advantage shooting with the Fuji MF, I tried all the GFX lenses and TBH I found my A7RIII files having more detail and sharper
X-T2 files on the other hand (APSC 24MP) did not cut it for me past 12x18.
X-T2 files on the other hand (APSC 24MP) did not cut it for me past 12x18.
Dogman
Veteran
Not an expert, can't answer.
I was never a methodical shooter to begin with. My favorite medium format film camera was the Pentax 645, a camera I used like a 35mm, mostly handheld.
I was never a methodical shooter to begin with. My favorite medium format film camera was the Pentax 645, a camera I used like a 35mm, mostly handheld.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Hard for me to answer too, because I just recently bought a FF digital. I still prefer the look of film, but the ease of use is certainly welcome. I find that for what I do even sending files is hard. They are too big and I don't feel like loading up my computer with those monsters or always having to down size them. I don't print large so buying a MF digital is way beyond my needs.
I do find that there is a slight reason to be more methodical with the FF digital as you can squeeze a little more 'quality' into your files. But I have slap my hand with a ruler to remind me that I shouldn't care.
I do find that there is a slight reason to be more methodical with the FF digital as you can squeeze a little more 'quality' into your files. But I have slap my hand with a ruler to remind me that I shouldn't care.
pluton
Well-known
3 quasi-random observations:
1. The photo-chemical print medium was not [practically] limited in resolution by having a 'DPI' that it couldn't exceed.
2. I've still never seen inkjet prints that looked as sharp and as finely detailed as a contact print from an 8x10" negative, or a good coffee table-sized book with good quality lithographic reproductions of 35mm, medium-format, large-format, OR digital photographs. Is lithography the best print medium?
3. Part of the reason---maybe the main reason---that large format film looked so good is that the degree of enlargement was substantially lower than 35mm. This factor relaxes the demands on both the film and the camera lenses.
Sure...you can get super resolution from a 24x36 sensor of 50MP, but you'll have to buy a really expensive lens, not shoot hand held, AND focus it really, really carefully(= slowly).
1. The photo-chemical print medium was not [practically] limited in resolution by having a 'DPI' that it couldn't exceed.
2. I've still never seen inkjet prints that looked as sharp and as finely detailed as a contact print from an 8x10" negative, or a good coffee table-sized book with good quality lithographic reproductions of 35mm, medium-format, large-format, OR digital photographs. Is lithography the best print medium?
3. Part of the reason---maybe the main reason---that large format film looked so good is that the degree of enlargement was substantially lower than 35mm. This factor relaxes the demands on both the film and the camera lenses.
Sure...you can get super resolution from a 24x36 sensor of 50MP, but you'll have to buy a really expensive lens, not shoot hand held, AND focus it really, really carefully(= slowly).
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I think the big Fuji makes real sense for two reasons. (1) Until now, big digital was expensive and, even then, the cameras were incredibly limited in what you could do with them. So a lot of photographers who wanted detailed images, large images or both shot medium format or sheet film instead of digital. A few that come to mind are Gregory Crewdson, Leibovitz, Edward Burtynsky, Nick Brandt and Lee Friedlander. (2) On the commercial side, you can crop the crap out of 100MG. Anybody who has shot commercial or advertising has had some art director crop the crap.
In the past a lot of photographers owned both little film cameras and big film cameras and picked the right one for the job. This will be the first time the little camera and an affordable big camera were made by the same company.
In the past a lot of photographers owned both little film cameras and big film cameras and picked the right one for the job. This will be the first time the little camera and an affordable big camera were made by the same company.