Digital Medium Format

[defconfunk]

I've got a soft spot for the Leica S series of digital medium format (DMF) cameras. I've never used one, nor any other DMF. I'm not really sure *why* I have the soft spot for the Leica. I guess the propoganda got through to me.

Anways, after reading the latest Leica S sensor review on DxO Mark (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Leica-S-sensor-review-Consummate-performer) I have to ask the question: How relevant are DMF cameras anymore?

I've got a Bronica ETR-Si, when I enlarge a 645 negative onto an 8x10 I know why I love the format. I'm not saying 35mm at 8x10 is lacking, but 645 at 8x10 is just so darned easy to make beautiful. I know that if someone asked me for a large print (16"x20" or larger) I'd be reaching for the MF (and giving serious thought to renting a 4x5).

But while film scales easily, digital doesn't. The "full frame" DMFs have a (barely) smaller sensor than a 645 negative, and they come with some serious trade offs (very limited ISO, limited burst capability, etc).

What does a DMF give in exchange for it's astronomical costs?

 

[Steve M.]

You don't have to buy film for it, or send it out to be processed (if you're shooting color commercially for a client and need it yesterday).

 

[Frank Petronio]

All this shows is how pointless DxO comparisons are, they are hugely flawed and not relevant to practical usage.

 

[santino]

it shows people that you've just spent a lot of money 😀 (especially for the S2).
maybe there an older digital back out there for your Bronica that is less expensive?

 

[defconfunk]

All this shows is how pointless DxO comparisons are, they are hugely flawed and not relevant to practical usage.

That line isn't terribly helpful for anyone who hasn't used a digital medium format (such as myself).

In what way is the comparison pointless - what does the DMF give you that the smaller digital format doesn't?

Steve, you don't need to send out film for a D800 either - my question remains, what does an S2, 645D, or PhaseOne give you that a D800 does not?
Edit: I wasn't as clear as I thought in the original post. What does DMF give you over Digital Full Frame?

Santino, I've looked. (Un)fortunately no one makes a back that will fit on the Bronica. One on hand, it means I don't get giant MP images withouth scanning film, but it also means I'm not tempted to drop thousands of dollars on a digital back that will be eclipsed in a few short years.

Fotodiox used to have a 'cheap' MF back that could fit a number of older MF bodies, but the Bronica wasn't one of them. I've seen a kickstarter for a scanning back that attached an iphone or something to the back of an MF camera (can't remember which cameras it supported), moved it around, and stitched together an image. That might work for landscape work, but since I mostly do portrait work, it wouldn't help me any.

 

[Spanik]

it also means I'm not tempted to drop thousands of dollars on a digital back that will be eclipsed in a few short years.

In digital everything is eclipsed in a few years. Certainly DMF where the transition to CMOS is about to start and the changes will be enormous.

 

[santino]

so I guess then that DMF gives a faster and (easier) work flow, also digital images always look different than film ones do (IMO), DMF has definitely less noise than ff dslrs, you probably can get a flash sync speed of whatever speed a lens offers with every flash (some S lenses have build in central shutters too) - thats all I can think of at the moment...

 

[GaryLH]

I think the best way to look at it --- it's all about the complete package. What good is the best sensor, if for example the lens is only so-so.

Gary

 

[redisburning]

well in the case of the Leica S system you get access to some of, legitimately, the greatest lenses of all time.

high ISO has never made sense to me for statis object shooters anyway. Ive gotten by with 400 and never go above that on my Canon. Even if the camera can handle it, lighting situations above that make color photos look hideous.

the thing is that there are medium format lenses which can run with 35mm optics at 100%. Leica S lenses are some of them. So too are the better examples from the Contax, Mamiya and Pentax 645 systems (the ones with APO in the name are a safe bet) as well as the really special lenses from larger formats (e.g. Rollei Schneider 90/4 APO).

Sadly, DMF is going away because people don't get a chance to work with the cameras due to cost. The really high end ones are pushing 200 megapixels and before you say you don't need that much, that's right, YOU don't. I have a thing Im shooting this week where Ive rented lighting and of course I wish I could have rented an IQ180 since my subjects aren't going to be moving much and the multishot would work. T

Anyway, a lot of those magazine covers are still shot doing DMF. Even with a D800, you've still got an issue: lenses. gz on your one lens (the 55/1.4 APO Distagon).

 

[Frank Petronio]

That line isn't terribly helpful for anyone who hasn't used a digital medium format (such as myself).

Sorry, I will provide links from a simple search for your convenience. First, you can download some raw S2 files to compare to whatever else you care to and judge for yourself"

http://s.leica-camera.com/S-RAW

While I'm sure you can find several other comparisons, this one by Ming is pretty good as he addresses practical concerns:

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

In my point of view, any of the medium format digital backs are going to cost you a lot for a somewhat better quality. But even a lower end or older back at low ISO values will still have an edge over any smaller sensor because nothing beats sensor area. While the DMFB sensors are only 1.5 -2x a full frame sensor, it is still like making the jump from an APS to FF sensor with consumer cameras.

Even if the sensors are somewhat outdated compared to what is possible with the CanikonSony cameras, the sheer size provides favorable optical characteristics that give you more control over depth of field and also a nicer, larger viewfinder. Especially in the case of the Leica S-series, the lenses are going to be the best.

I do not own a MFDB but know several photographers who do. There is a "professional image" factor at work with some clients who appreciate the investment and equate it with being a successful photographer. But more than anything else, the photographers all say that editing the large, clear MFDB files is a pleasure as they are more "editable" than comparable DSLR files. The skin tones especially. However, I personally still think they are hard to justify and I can't imagine any reproduction requirements that would require a MFDB over a top end DSLR.

On my own smaller scale, I still keep a CCD Nikon DSLR around and use it at low ISO because I like the way the files look from it. And I shoot 4x5 because I think, even if various tests might show that the new super Leaf or Blad back betters 4x5 film technically, that the size of the sensor matters. I like how large format renders and also that I can shoot it far less expensively.

Perhaps once my net worth exceeds $4-5 million and I know my retirement is secure I will pick up a Leica Sx but it would probably be the older model, used ;-p

 

[redisburning]

I think the best way to look at it --- it's all about the complete package. What good is the best sensor, if for example the lens is only so-so.

Gary

Gary,

I agree on it being the best result in the overall output. People don't know how to evaluate lenses. Even professional photographers.

I see in your sig you shoot Fuji. I've seen a ton of people claim the 35 Fuji lens is sharper than the Leica Summilux 50 ASPH. Which, at equal print size, is simply not true. Yet I see a lot of people making money off their photos saying it.

 

[GaryLH]

True.. I tend to think that the new asph are at times too sharp. Example, I have used both the 35 v4 and the asph version of the cron, and I like the looks of the v4 better for a lot of the normal stuff I take pictures of.

But at end of the day.. A lot depends on how big u print and is it good enough. These days I prefer AF anyway..

Gary

 

[redisburning]

Gary,

Im still working on finding a lens that is too sharp. No luck yet, even with my 50/2.0 Makro-Planar at f5.6, and that's threatening MTF80 at 40lp/mm

FWIW Fuji is my lens make of choice for 4x5 and Im not taking a dig at the quality of their lenses. Only being realistic about the impact of sensor area on IQ.

I think you might find it worthwhile to go look at some 55 distagon shots; the lens is two stops better than the best even from Leica and every portrait I've seen with it has been spectacular. Because resolution is not the enemy, it's the way it is presented.

 

[GaryLH]

Yeah Zeiss glass vs Leica had different signatures. The new Leica asph designs to me seems to be Leica moving more toward Zeiss IMHO. I have actually used a lot of different Zeiss lenses when I was shooting film. I still own a Contax G system and at one time during my film days thought about putting together a Contax SLR system.

When I want fine detail these days I use a Sigma Merrill camera.. If I am going out shooting other things or need high iso, the nod goes to one of the other cameras systems I have around..

Anyway we stray from the ops question.. And back to the main event?

Gary

 

[x-ray]

If you've not used or don't own MFD then I don't think you can honestly answer the question. I purchased a CFV39 Hasslelblad back for my 501CM three years ago. Two years ago I purchased a Nikon D800. I'm so impressed with the D800 that I put my CFV39 up for sale last year but reconsidered. What's the real world difference, the CFV39 has color depth unlike any 35mm format digital I've seen. It captures true 16 bit color and there is a real difference. I compare it to a painter using watered down paint vs using pure concentrated pigment. You might say why not run the saturation up but that's not what it's about. It's about the subtle shades and tones that the MF backs capture vs DSLR's. Even the old Zeiss lenses smoke most of the newer 35mm glass particularly at the edges. My current asph Leica glass on my M9 is by far the sharpies of the 35mm lenses wide open (not stopped down) but the limiting factor is the body / sensor / capture system. The M9 falls shot of MY by a good margin where the D800/E comes closer but it's still not MF.

Now the catch, you can see the difference on a really fine monitor what's wide gamut but it's hard to put the look on paper. The limiting factor is in the printing. It still looks better than anything I can get from 35mm format digital but not that much different that most would see it.

There's no AA filter in MF backs and the additional size of the sensor compares much like large format vs 35mm. Larger film just makes a smoother picture with better tonality. I have to say I really love the look of the SSD vs CMOS sensors and the M9 and Hasselblad use similar CCD's.

For the average photographer / pro would I advise sinking the price of MFD, NO. There's not that much difference. There are tradeoffs for both systems, 35mm digital vs MF. Neither are perfect and each excel for certain types of work.

Why am I keeping the CFV39? One I own it and I don't need the money. I originally bought it for use on both the 501cm and a Linhof Technikardan for studio product and architectural work. I did a lot of catalog work with it and some beautiful architectural work for clients. I'm glad I bought it. It produces images with an edge over smaller formats and my clients like that. Also they like the ability to enlarge the files for large displays and prints. the files hold up incredibly well.

If I were doing it again would I buy one again? I don't know if i would. I guess I most likely would given the kind of work I was doing at the time.

Using a MFD system shows what kind of photographer you are. It shows every flaw in your technique and subject. Even the old Zeiss glass is killer sharp. All of the glass is good but there are a few lenses that are the tops of anything I've every used. the 120 macro planar, 100 planar and 180 sonar at just three examples. The newer 40mm's, 40 fle and SWC/m are superb as are the 250 and 350 app lenses.

If I were advising someone and I guess I am I'd say save the extra money and get a D800 or D800E depending on what you're shooting and get the best glass you can buy. Don't buy the consumer grade lenses because you'll wind up selling them for the G series Nikkors. These cameras will knock you out for much less money and weight. They're incredibly versatile.

 

[thegman]

On my own smaller scale, I still keep a CCD Nikon DSLR around and use it at low ISO because I like the way the files look from it. And I shoot 4x5 because I think, even if various tests might show that the new super Leaf or Blad back betters 4x5 film technically, that the size of the sensor matters. I like how large format renders and also that I can shoot it far less expensively.

I've not seen a comparison yet where a digital medium format back show more resolution than ISO 100 4x5 film like Ektar... However, it does interest me why 4x5 film does not show dramatically better resolution. We can find comparisons of Ektar 100 in 35mm showing similar resolution to a 21MP EOS 5D Mk II. So, should a drum scanned 4x5 not be showing hugely more resolution than than any digital camera, if we consider how much more film surface 4x5 film has than 35mm?

Or is it more about limitations with film flatness, resolution of lenses etc? But then cameras like Alpa use large format lenses, so lens resolution should be pretty similar to a 4x5 camera.

It's something that interests and puzzles me.

 

[x-ray]

I've not seen a comparison yet where a digital medium format back show more resolution than ISO 100 4x5 film like Ektar... However, it does interest me why 4x5 film does not show dramatically better resolution. We can find comparisons of Ektar 100 in 35mm showing similar resolution to a 21MP EOS 5D Mk II. So, should a drum scanned 4x5 not be showing hugely more resolution than than any digital camera, if we consider how much more film surface 4x5 film has than 35mm?

Or is it more about limitations with film flatness, resolution of lenses etc? But then cameras like Alpa use large format lenses, so lens resolution should be pretty similar to a 4x5 camera.

It's something that interests and puzzles me.

Lens resolution plays a big part. Techcam lenses aren't just large format lenses. Most are apo and very flat field at the sensor and highly optimized for that format size of digital.

Search the internet for the IQ180 back vs 8x10 film. You'll be amazed at what that back will do.

Don't get me wrong because I'm an old film guy. I used to shoot as many as 250 sheets 8x10 of chrome a week when shooting catalogs and also 11x14 chrome in the 70's and 80's. I truly love the look of LF film but the current digital technology has serious advantages in dynamic range, resolution and convenience. I'm not saying one is better than the other because the have a different look but digital MF is amazing.

 

[thegman]

Lens resolution plays a big part. Techcam lenses aren't just large format lenses. Most are apo and very flat field at the sensor and highly optimized for that format size of digital.

Search the internet for the IQ180 back vs 8x10 film. You'll be amazed at what that back will do.

Don't get me wrong because I'm an old film guy. I used to shoot as many as 250 sheets 8x10 of chrome a week when shooting catalogs and also 11x14 chrome in the 70's and 80's. I truly love the look of LF film but the current digital technology has serious advantages in dynamic range, resolution and convenience. I'm not saying one is better than the other because the have a different look but digital MF is amazing.

I don't question the capabilities of digital medium format in the slightest, they are remarkable devices. I guess what intrigues me is that 4x5 isn't hugely higher in resolution, but as you say, perhaps it's mostly down to the lenses.

 

[thegman]

Just found one of the comparisons I was looking for:

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/large.html

The IQ180 is obviously less grainy than the 4x5, but looking at the 20 pound note comparison, not sure if it contains any more actual detail. Still a superb performance from the IQ180 though, considering how much smaller it's sensor area is.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I think the problem is that even with the fairly careful comparison that Tim Parkin did with the 180 back versus 8x10 is that there are just too many variables. The 8x10 tripod was wimpy, wind, atmospheric haze, depth of field, focusing accuracy, and most importantly, the skill of the drum scanner operator all muddled the results. So far every other test hasn't been any better. Luminous Landscape did a real sloppy biased test.

What you're left with are real world considerations. 8x10 is still the gold standard but with a beefy tripod and Aztek drum scan. A lot of times the MFDB is going to be more practical but other times the versa. Long exposures with camera movements go to film, more casual set-ups and productions belong to digital. Field work is hugely variable.

Certainly if you do everything top notch then 8x10's two gigs of information is unbeatable but it's darn hard to do 8x10 perfect. Most people aren't sand bagging their tripods or scanning to that degree.

It's also a moot point. Normal people can't afford either method. And the few photographers who get all anal over this make the most boring awful photos in the world, worse than Noctiluxers photographing their cats. Remember that Gigalux guy who built "the highest resolution camera in the world"? Yeah, real sharp tripe.