W/NW Digital Medium Format - Images

Nobi Kaigan
65:24 aspect ratio​
U69954.1717617220.0.jpg

Fujifilm GFX50R camera
Fujinon GF 30mm f3.5 lens
June 2024, Nobi Kaigan, Japan​
 
I have a couple of questions for you guys, based in part on one of my current frustrations with the gor-ge-ous files that my Nikon Z8 is producing. I have only owned the camera for a couple of months but I feel like its technical abilities have changed what I can take picture of, and how I am photographing. All of that is good, but I am struggling a bit with the following:

1) How do you show off that 46 (or 50 or 100) MP goodness? I have the sense that a version of this problem exists for digi-medium format images as well. We all have to fit out 101010100's through a very narrow pipette to get them to the internet, let alone RFF. Or put another way: if I as the viewer can't tell the difference between a 100 MP Hassie image and a 24 MP image from a camera made by some other maker, all because the output has had to be downsized to fit on a webpage, is there an advantage to MF that can be seen in this venue? If a megapixel falls in the forest, but no one can see it . . . (you get the idea). Maybe those of us with really high resolution cameras have to buy space from SmugMug or another venue, and post links rather than images? Dunno. Would be interested to hear the thoughts of those of you like @Vince Lupo who have been in MF-land for a while.

2) The moving target problem. This is more of a philosophical question. I noticed that when this thread started in 2020, Mike was posting images made with a 50MP Fuji (a beast. . . . I have a friend here in the States who has one and I can tell you that the native files are A-Stown-Ding) Now Nikon and Canon are making mirrorless cameras that are within a hair's breadth of that. Is my Nikon Z8 a "medium format" camera now?
I would argue "no" -- even if the resolution is higher than the first digi-Hasselblad backs that were produced.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I have a couple of questions for you guys, based in part on one of my current frustrations with the gor-ge-ous files that my Nikon Z8 is producing. I have only owned the camera for a couple of months but I feel like its technical abilities have changed what I can take picture of, and how I am photographing. All of that is good, but I am struggling a bit with the following:

1) How do you show off that 46 (or 50 or 100) MP goodness? I have the sense that a version of this problem exists for digi-medium format images as well. We all have to fit out 101010100's through a very narrow pipette to get them to the internet, let alone RFF. Or put another way: if I as the viewer can't tell the difference between a 100 MP Hassie image and a 24 MP image from a camera made by some other maker, all because the output has had to be downsized to fit on a webpage, is there an advantage to MF that can be seen in this venue? If a megapixel falls in the forest, but no one can see it . . . (you get the idea). Maybe those of us with really high resolution cameras have to buy space from SmugMug or another venue, and post links rather than images? Dunno. Would be interested to hear the thoughts of those of you like @Vince Lupo who have been in MF-land for a while.

2) The moving target problem. This is more of a philosophical question. I noticed that when this thread started in 2020, Mike was posting images made with a 50MP Fuji (a beast. . . . I have a friend here in the States who has one and I can tell you that the native files are A-Stown-Ding) Now Nikon and Canon are making mirrorless cameras that are within a hair's breadth of that. Is my Nikon Z8 a "medium format" camera now?
I would argue "no" -- even if the resolution is higher than the first digi-Hasselblad backs that were produced.
Click to expand...
Really it’s in prints I think. There are some things in how they handle in to out of focus transition, but that’s also very much in the lens - I have 35mm pictures from Zeiss or Sigma lenses that have real 3D pop, as well as from the Fuji.

They do seem different in Lightroom though. Obviously, zooming in goes much deeper, but they also have a lovely clarity - again at least in part the lenses.

I was surprised that even the small step from 36x24 to 44x33 changed the look enough to notice - longer focal length for an equivalent field of view reduces depth of field I think.

Doesn’t mean smaller formats are dead though. I like the depth of field on the GRiii, which I like to shoot in aperture priority at f8 or f5.6.

Mike
 
Oh, I am a big believer in multiple photographic tools for different uses. I even snapped up a Nikon D100 because (I think) that its chip is the same as that used in my late, lamented Espon R-D1. So I don't think anything is "dead.". But when I got my first medium format film camera back in the 90's I immediately saw a change in the quality of my output. Perhaps you are right and it's the prints where the differences will tell. I have shied away from figuring out the comparatively complex world of digital printing (compared to printing in a wet darkroom). Maybe it's time, though.

I enjoy the images in this thread, but I don't perceive their medium format-ness, in this venue. Perhaps I am looking at or for the wrong things though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
The Medium Format Semi-Fisheye Lens: something the rangefinder never approaches
Replies
0
Views
343
RJ-
R
raydm6
LargeSense LS911 Hands-On: The First Digital Large Format Camera
Replies
2
Views
2K
x-ray
x-ray
J
  • Article Article
How Long Will Your Pictures Last?It all depends on you, your successors, and whether anyone else cares.
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
13K
Freakscene
Freakscene
J
  • Article Article
How Lomography Singlehandedly Revived the Moribund 110 Format!A boon to shooters and collectors seeking something different and fun.
Replies
13
Views
1K
Archiver
A
J
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
10K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
Back
Top Bottom