Phenomenon

[Bill Pierce]

I recently played with some files from the Fuji GFX 50R, a camera with a medium format sensor. While there was a difference in image quality between images from Fuji’s APS-c half frame sensor in the X-T3, it was a difference that was only clearly visible with close inspection of large prints. And then I came across an article on the web from a landscape photographer that said the same thing. That’s kind of terrifying - until you realize how differently we work with big cameras and little cameras.

Whether it’s a big sensor digital camera or a big sheet film camera, we tend to use them with a tripod and lenses at their optimum aperture in a way that maximizes sharpness. Not so that little fellow that we hand hold and shoot wide open. But when that little guy gets the big camera treatment - tripod, low ISO, optimum aperture - the results are amazing. There’s just one problem. You are not going to street shoot on a tripod at ISO 100 with the lens at f/8. Well, actually there is another problem. Some of us aren’t going to shoot on a tripod at ISO 100 with the lens at f/8 anytime, even when we are taking a picture of a building or a tree. We erroneously think we can handhold 1/125 or shoot close to wide open and not degrade the image. But when we treat a little camera like it was a big camera, the results are amazing. Anyone have any experiences with this phenomenon??????

 

[Corran]

I think the word you are looking for is laziness.

 

[xayraa33]

Horses for courses as they say.

Any photographic image benefits from a steady camera and a sweet spot aperture setting.

A small camera with a fast lens and relatively fast iso film or sensor setting can preform more adequately for say photojournalism use than a view camera.

I mean that was what the innovation of the miniature camera (ie: the 35mm camera like the Leica and the Contax) revolution, starting in the 1930s was all about.

 

[Dogman]

Lazy? Maybe. Probably. At least in some cases.

I've shot large, medium and small format cameras from tripods in the past. But I hated carrying and setting up the tripod and grew to dislike the static shots I was getting. Yes, the images were technically sharper and the compositions were more studied. It's just not the kind of photography I'm into anymore. I haven't used a tripod in years and I like my pictures better for their spontaneity. I give up some technical image quality for that.

 

[willie_901]

...Anyone have any experiences with this phenomenon??????

Yes, I have.

At every interiors photography gig the camera was on a tripod with a gear-head. Camera ISO was always at the native (base) value. Bright interior lights were always overexposed. Windows were always slightly overexposed. Indirect, off-camera flashes selectively lit darker areas. Shadow regions were always pushed in post production. Focus was always manually set to about 1/3 the distance between the camera to the most distant interior feature.

I started with a D200, upgraded to D300, D700 and finally an X-T1. Each upgrade was a real time saver. The gain in signal-to-noise ratio meant more dynamic range, using lower external flash light levels and much less time spent optimizing rendering in post-production. The lenses (ultra-wide zoom) got better with each upgrade too. This saved time and effort as well.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Yep, have too and my problem is how to carry a tripod or even a monopod on a motorbike. OK, I'll give it a try and just strap it to my body and see how that goes.

 

[jsrockit]

I do not care about getting the best maximum quality because I`d prefer to be mobile and active and getting shots all around my city. I use high shutter speeds and if my ISO has to go up a few notches, I`m not going to stress it. Museums and galleries are full of images that were not made at optimal settings.

 

[ndnik]

Museums and galleries are full of images that were not made at optimal settings.

This. Technical image quality matters a lot less than camera makers and internet discussion forums want you to think.

-N.

 

[Corran]

True, until it does. Landscape photography is generally not done at f/2.8, ISO 800 for a reason.

Seems like a lot of folks talk about "mobility" and "city," which of course is different.

Pick the right tool for the situation and your vision. Nothing else matters.

6x17 pinhole image, 8 second exposure on a tripod at f/200 or so:

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Absolutely had that experience... with the Sigma SD Quattro H camera. Even though its a small camera with a cropped sensor, it pretty much had to be used on a tripod and at ISO 100. The foveon sensor really isn't useful for color unless one uses it at its base ISO. Any higher and the noise becomes nasty. So slow shutter speeds are a must. But the results are amazing! The camera forces its user to treat it like a big camera. 🙂

 

[shimokita]

... when we treat a little camera like it was a big camera, the results are amazing.

As Fonzie would say: "correctamundo".

For me it's mostly the Nikon F3 or Mamiya RB67 (albeit the latter less often). Yes I can hand hold the SLR or x100t when using NDGrad filters but it's better with a tripod and cable release... printing at 20x30 cm the results are very nice.

A light weight tripod makes all the difference and after a few outings it really is second nature...

Casey

 

[jsrockit]

True, until it does. Landscape photography is generally not done at f/2.8, ISO 800 for a reason.

Seems like a lot of folks talk about "mobility" and "city," which of course is different.

Pick the right tool for the situation and your vision. Nothing else matters.

6x17 pinhole image, 8 second exposure on a tripod at f/200 or so:

You are right, but we all knew that tripods are used for this... we were giving the counter argument. It is as useful me due to yes, the city. Nothing wrong with doing both...

But your own photo shows that we don't always use a tripod only due to wanting the best IQ. We can use it for other reasons as well... i.e. long exposures.

 

[colker]

A normal lens on big format has the dof of a tele on a small format. This is the main difference and won´t change no matter how advanced are the files.

 

[Dogman]

A normal lens on big format has the dof of a tele on a small format. This is the main difference and won´t change no matter how advanced are the files.

Yep. But large format cameras (and some medium formats as well) allow adjustments to DOF with swings and tilts.

 

[colker]

Yep. But large format cameras (and some medium formats as well) allow adjustments to DOF with swings and tilts.

A Fuji apsc "normal" lens is 35mm. A normal lens on a MF is 80mm. That´s a huge difference in lens character.

Otoh that particular aspect of picture taking is not what drives my attention right now.

 

[Corran]

A Fuji apsc "normal" lens is 35mm. A normal lens on a MF is 80mm. That´s a huge difference in lens character.

Otoh that particular aspect of picture taking is not what drives my attention right now.

A common misconception. So as to avoid differences between lens designs, consider a Tessar lens of 45mm on 35mm film or digital FF (cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio) , 180mm Tessar on 4x5, and a 360mm Tessar on 8x10. All 3 will render the scene identically if they are shot at comparative apertures (say, f/8 on 35mm, f/32 on 4x5, and f/64 on 8x10).

The rendering of the objects in the frame does not change. That only happens by moving the camera. These lenses produce the same field of view in each situation. The optics and commensurately the image circle increases between them to cover the larger film.

Of course a modern lens with 10+ glass elements designed for APS-C may render differently than a similar FoV lens with 4 elements on larger formats simply due to the vast differences in lens characters, just as different 35mm lenses will render slightly differently on the same camera. But it's not the format causing this.

 

[willie_901]

... But it's not the format causing this.

It certainly is not the format or focal length.

Beside the optical design differences you mentioned, newer lens coating technologies are also a factor.

 

[NickTrop]

Bill -- you didn't mention image stabilization. Tripods are arguably unnecessary. I ditched small format digital for two reasons:

1. Size of the image plane. More gradation of in focus/out-of-focus areas. More "bokeh" stops to play with. To me there is not a helluva lot of difference when shooting in good light at f-11 between formats. But even at f-8, f-5.6 I can get some subject isolation out of a full format sensor. And when I shot MF, definitely. Has nothing to do with resolution. You can always pick out MF film shots out of a crowd. More depth, more 3D feel over smaller formats. Had nothing to do with resolution even in the film era.

2. Low light performance. Period. Larger sensors, better low-light performance.

I will never go back to small format. I bought 2 used D600 full-frames. If I want to cut down on size I shoot with a small D series lens -- 35/2 AF-D., 50/1.4 AF-D I carry it around a nice camera strap slung low or flipped to my back. Walking around I resign myself to play with one lens. A good strap. No strain, camera at the ready. Simple solution to larger cameras. I carry a plastic bag in my back pocket in case of rain.

No need for smaller sensors and smaller sized cameras and the IQ sacrifices in terms of subject isolation, 3D "pop", or low-light performance. You can keep'em all.

A final note. Full frame is the sweet spot in terms of size and performance. MF sensor cameras are simply too big. Smaller sensor sizes have too many IQ compromises -- one of those compromises is not resolution to the extent it matters.

 

[emraphoto]

I think the word you are looking for is laziness.

Or restrictions due to environment.
Or considerations and sacrifices in regards to load logistics.
Or impact of your presence on subject matter.
Or actual legal restrictions regarding tripod use.
Or....

 

[colker]

A common misconception. So as to avoid differences between lens designs, consider a tessar lens of 45mm on 35mm film or digital FF (cropped to 4:5 aspect ratio) , 180mm tessar on 4x5, and a 360mm tessar on 8x10. All 3 will render the scene identically if they are shot at comparative apertures (say, f/8 on 35mm, f/32 on 4x5, and f/64 on 8x10).

The rendering of the objects in the frame does not change. That only happens by moving the camera. These lenses produce the same field of view in each situation. The optics and commensurately the image circle increases between them to cover the larger film.

Of course a modern lens with 10+ glass elements designed for APS-C may render differently than a similar FoV lens with 4 elements on larger formats simply due to the vast differences in lens characters, just as different 35mm lenses will render slightly differently on the same camera. But it's not the format causing this.

No. False notion.

I don´t want to argue but there is an optical rule that equates the impact of print size to lens focal length.
That´s why we use long teles to shoot magazine covers: the bigger the focal length, the more impact a 20x30cm page will have.
This impact is part of what should be called lens render.
It´s the same rule behind filming on 70mm film format.

This should be the major reason for medium format sensors. It has very little to do w/ quality. Apsc sensors have plenty of information already.

It´s not about the size of the sensor but the lens you will use to cover a field of view. The common misconception is believing 120 film gives better quality per se or due to enlarging factor. The lens optics play an important role.

Interesting how you guys ignore such a basic rule of photography.