Fuji X100 vs medium format

Thank you Peter,

you have restored my faith in forum readers.

And in MF too. Although I still wonder if the Rolleiflex would hold it's ground against a Ricoh GXR with M-mount module, which is the swap I'm currently considering.
 
buzzardkid said:
Thank you Peter,

you have restored my faith in forum readers.

And in MF too. Although I still wonder if the Rolleiflex would hold it's ground against a Ricoh GXR with M-mount module, which is the swap I'm currently considering.
Click to expand...
Mind you, the video's not mine, I merely pointed it out, but wholehartedly agree with its content.
 
I had a Mamiya 6 and X100. Sold the Mamiya.

Character: MF wins, and could be chosen for that alone.

IQ: MF has the the possibility for much greater IQ, X100's 12MP is not that much (one reason I consider the Xpro1, 16MP seems just right for my use).

But in reality, I see many real life situations where the X100 would win in sharpness and detail. When when shooting handheld in dimly lit environments for example, and you need that high ISO.

Another thing is scanning and printing. I think unless you have an expensive workflow with drum scanners, I think it will be pretty close in many situations.

When scanning with my epson V700 35mm film files would lose against the X100 for photos shot in the same situations (though admittedly Portra 800 is an amazing film for it's ASA). MF was superior with slow film and good light, but not to an extend where I found it worth the trouble.
I have started to begin evaluating with the print (digital A3+ size print) and work backwards. I think anything higher than 16MP is not going to make a difference in over 90% of my images. 12MP can still struggle.

The great thing about medium format IMO is, that you can use film, and still get a great quality big print without to much cost and effort. That and the MF rendering, DOF etc. I wouldn't use it for pure IQ, unless you are ready to go all the way and invest in expensive scanning and printing. Get a 5DII od D800 instead.

Now, anybody in for a RX100 vs MF debate? ;)
 
I can see where the question comes from. Sites like luminous-landscape have been claiming the superiority of digital over film since the Canon D30 (3MP SLR) came out, and ''proving'' it with comparisons of images of some highrise building close-ups.

And indeed, for rectangular subjects, digital has it easy. The sensor matrix aligns nicely with the subject matter, and the software has an easy job picking up straight line material to emphasize in sharpening. Based on this, you'd be tricked into believing that an X100 could hold its ground versus MF.

Thing is, it all falls flat on its face once you start shooting something other than a row of windows. Foliage at longer distances is especially tricky; random shapes, fine and subtle detail. With a 6x6 SLR it's just point and shoot and I'm fine. While with a 12MP D90, no matter the lens, aperture, tripod, ISO, and whatever else I can think of, foliage in landscape images remains mushy.
 
I had a P30+ ....

I had a P30+ ....

Every time I look at a file from my OM-D or my RX100 I morn the loss of the IQ since the sale of the Mamiya/Phase one kit.

I went on a landscape workshop and shot an IQ180 on a tech camera, and that is amazing.

However, the reality of limited time and gear depreciation set in, and I sold off the P30+.

There is NO comparison. Right now, the portraits of my kids hanging on the wall are made with a Fuji GA645ZI shot with Adox 100 film. Developed and scanned at home. Absolute IQ is on par with the D300 or OM-D at the pixel level, but the character is way better. The just look more analogue. If I had real silver halide prints from the negatives, I think they would be even more interesting.

Shooting with my restored Zeiss Ikon that belonged to my mothers grandfather is simply special, but the thing is a beast to use as it only zone focuses.

Not everything about photography is limited to IQ.

Dave
 
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...

Hi Ray

In answer to your question... For me the differences between the two types of camera are all about the character and little about the quality. Decent digital sensors (like the one in the X100) enable us to enlarge plenty large enough for almost all possible uses. Thus the size advantage of medium format film over 35mm is (excluding enormous prints that must be viewed very close) pretty much a thing of the past. What remains is the character of a medium format image, such as (all else being equal) differences in depth of focus, less grain and so on.
 
In many respects, it's unfortunate that "comparison" and "competition" start with the same four letter as some mistake one for the other - or at least see a comparison as a win/lose situation in much the same way as the yawnworthy film-v-digital and Nikon-v-Canon threads.

As has been mentioned earlier, "it depends" what you want to use the cameras for. If you want lightweight portability, speed of use and convenience with accurate colours and sharpness, the X100 is probably a better option.

If, however, you want incredibly sharp detail and the flexibility of a system like Hasselblad, Mamiya or Bronica and the ability to enlarge images to huge sizes, then MF is the way to go>

Maybe not. my Mamiya 7 is very quick and convenient and I have a few lenses which offers me flexibility. But then I only get 10 shots on a roll whereas the X100 allows me to shoot hundreds of photos non-stop.

Frankly, I don't think the OP gave us enough of a steer regarding the features he wants comparing. If, as his second post suggests, ultimate image quality is the critical area, I don't believe there would be many who would argue in favour of the X100 - as good as it undoubtedly is.
 
I would echo those who say that in good light or on a tripod, MF wins. But for handheld use the X100 is certainly competitive with a film 645, and in subdued light the x100 starts at f/2 with very usable ISO1600.

Under almost all conditions except bright sunlight the image quality of (film) MF rigs will be limited by accuracy of focus, by slow shutter speeds, and by fim/sensor flatness — not by sensor resolution.

Dynamic range is in many cases a red herring, as demonstrated by the number of us who shot, and still shoot, transparency film with perhaps six stops of range.

So everything depends on working style and subject.
 
peteography said:
I'm sorry but if you're going to get critical about it, a blad 60mp back beats the x100.
Click to expand...

That's not a typical MF camera, even in 2012, any more than an S2 is. The median MF camera is still an H500 or a Y124, loaded with a roll of Tri-X or Portra (assuming that those materials continue to be available!).
 
OK, so it's time I jumped back into what has become a fairly steamy pond. Some of the responses to my post were measured and helpful, so my thanks to those members. I have been taking pictures for 55 years and have used Rolleis ('Cords, Wide, 2.8F), Hasselblad, Fuji 645GS, umpteen 35mm SLRS and now have an M2, M7, Pentax K5. I can develop C41, silver halide, I have wet-printed, but now scan. I use LR and CS3 and currently trialling Silver Efex Pro. I have also, in my youth, shot about 3 dozen weddings semi-professionally and also done some part-time commercial work. But the one thing I will always own up to is that I never stop learning and can always learn more - that is why I joined this forum.

As has correctly been pointed out in one of the replies, there have been some very detailed comparisons between digital and film. Also, I know that digital is edging ever closer to MF - yes, I do understand that your own criteria may dictate that MF will always win in your eyes, that is why I did not want to lay down too may 'rules' about what criteria were set. I wanted to see what members thought. I didn't expect some of the less polite replies.

Ray
 
thegman said:
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.
Click to expand...


I don't think 35mm film can quite easily out resolve digital alternatives. I love to know how you can do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom