Fuji X100 vs medium format

R

rayfoxlee

Raymondo
Local time
11:56 AM
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
258
Would anyone like to give an appraisal of the X100 against MF? This is just about image quality and nothing else - sharpness & resolution only, perhaps with a nod to 'character' of the two.

Does anyone have some comparative images of the same scene, shot on both?

Ray
 
Could you specify which kind of MF? A holga or a Hasselblad would yield quite different results.

The problem with comparing different cameras of different medium and size of that medium, as well as type (rangefinder/slr/tlr/viewcamera) is that even if you find a common ground. That is a test subject where you could test the cameras without consideration of the differences, it wouldn't tell you much as it would limit the creative process too much and also the test to the least capable camera. That is limit the cameras to something they can both do, not considering what they would do best individually.

But anyway. If you only present images in small size in digital form or small printed form, with no shorter dof than the compared camera with the least capability. Then the cheapest camera that live up to the standard you want in the finished image would always win as everything else would be overkill (atleast in picture for money, a large heavy and bulky camera might not be worth carrying around how cheap it might be). For larger prints your minimum standard would probably increase and the amount of cameras that would live up to expectation decrease.
 
There is no comparison. But regardless, the x100 is a capable camera and as long as you aren't doing huge prints the images are more than suitable.
 
Don't have the x100 but can compare pictures of my gf's fairly new aps-c DSLR and my pentacon six with zeiss lenses. As far as resolution is concerned you can still get a bit more out of a 6x6 slide or neg but that requires a really good (expensive) scanner. Image quality, at least to me, is not only about resolution, though and if we're talking tonal/dynamic range mf wins of course. A lot depends on the lenses used as well of course. And I think I don't have to tell you, that some (like me) just prefer the 'film look' (whatever that is). By the way, if your photo has 'character' doesn't depend on your gear but on your skills as a photographer. Sorry, but I just can't stand people using this word with respect to lenses, sensors, film etc...
 
You asked to compare the x100 to MF but didn't specify a camera or film type let alone 645 vs 6x6 or 6x7 6x9 etc.

It sounds to me like you've already decided the answer to your question. Use whatever you want, try them out side by side in your 'real world' if you like.
Just make pictures–make that the only resolution you care about.

Have fun!
 
Well, I have an x100 along with 646, 6x6, 6x7 MF and 4x5 LF cameras as well as "full-frame" digital cameras. I haven't compared them. Not sure why I would (they're all good, basically).

But I can say that if I'm grabbing only one camera on the way out the door, there's a good chance it'll be the x100, and that's what really matters in the end.

j
 
The above posts are all quite good. I'd add this, specifically:

With regard to "Raw resolution", if you're printing bigger than 9x14, the Fuji is at its limit.

My 1941 Kodak Medalist with its razor-sharp 100/3.5 Ektar has made honest 70Mp images on C41 Kodak film.
 
rayfoxlee said:
Would anyone like to give an appraisal of the X100 against MF? This is just about image quality and nothing else - sharpness & resolution only, perhaps with a nod to 'character' of the two.

Does anyone have some comparative images of the same scene, shot on both?

Ray
Click to expand...

I find this sort of thing quite interesting, but I don't have any comparisons to show you. As you'll know, there are so many factors, I think the main one being film speed. You can get 35mm film which can quite easily outresolve an M9, let alone an X100. However, you go up to even ISO 400, and digital will start to win easily. At ISO 3200, I think the X100 would outresolve even 6x9.

As always, I think the answer is "it depends", but I think depending on film, lens etc. either could win on pure resolution.
 
If you're looking into resolution, here's a comparison that might be useful: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

However, I've got an X-Pro and several 6x6 cameras. For the MF camera there are tons of variables. If you have a top quality body, lens and tripod using iso 100 slide film and then drum scan it - the MF camera will crush everything (including high-end digital backs). However, extreme comparisons like that are rarely useful. Instead - what result are you looking for? Why did you pick the x100 (a specific camera) and "Medium Format" (a wide genre)? We could use more info before we answer your question. :)
 
I think you need both. Then you can decide which you prefer.
If you don't like developing film, scanning and all the variables that entails then you probably won't like medium format.

Me, I sold my X100.



.
 
I once shot a photo with a Rolleiflex. Then I shot it again with a Fuji GL690.
I think there was a difference between the two.
Not sure if it was because the Fuji had Velvia 50 in it and the Rollei had HP5+, or my hands were just not steady enough holding the Rollei.

Perhaps it was the aspect ratio of the images ...

:D
 
It would be a stretch to expect the 12MP X100 to equal or exceed even a 6X6 with a high quality lens. But on a walk around the neighborhood, the X100, or even the X10, goes, while the Hasselblads stay behind. On a trip to Colorado, the 500c/m goes, and probably the SWC or XPAN as well; while the X100 may stay home. For IQ, the MF camera is my choice.
 
Small format sensors can not compete with medium format sensors in terms of dynamic range and resolution. Contradictory to popular believe, the dynamic range of medium format images is visibly better both in small prints and digital display. There's a great article on this here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/u...ters__it_is_all_about_the_small_details.shtml

X100's strength is in its ease of use (relative to using medium format cameras) and better portability. The trade off (compromise) in lower image quality (dynamic range, resolution) is well worth it for most if not all amateur photographers (photographers who do not earn their living with their craft). Incidentally where MF requires absolutely perfect shooting technique, smaller format cameras (including the X100) are far more forgiving and allow for sloppy technique. There's nothing inherently bad with sloppy technique (indeed most of do not have the time to utilize the proper techniques most of the time we are pho graphing), just that MF cameras, especially the likes of the IQ180 (80MP), are not forgiving and will make any mistakes quite noticeable.
 
The X100 wins when you go into a camera store and can't find anyone who knows what "rollfilm" is..... I expect in a few years 120 will no longer be available.

Sadly,
Dez
 
Dez said:
The X100 wins when you go into a camera store and can't find anyone who knows what "rollfilm" is..... I expect in a few years 120 will no longer be available.

Sadly,
Dez
Click to expand...

As I was picking up my developed roll of Velvia 120, the counter man said that while 135 may go away, pros in our area continue to shoot 120 for its superior resolution to digital, so they expect 120 to continue being available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom