Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I understand your points regarding image area equalling more smoothness.
However I don't think that addresses the obvious optical differences.
For instance why does the 80mm/f3.8 lens on my old Yashica deliver (to my eyes) a similar DOF to a f1 lens such as a Noctilux or Nokton in 35mm?
However I don't think that addresses the obvious optical differences.
For instance why does the 80mm/f3.8 lens on my old Yashica deliver (to my eyes) a similar DOF to a f1 lens such as a Noctilux or Nokton in 35mm?
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Take a look at this very talented gentleman's shots, taken with an M9 and tell me that the shot's stitched together don't look like 120.
I think this is because he's producing a larger virtual sensor size by doing this and also altering the FOV of the lens but not the aperture.
C.Rangefinder's Flickr Stream
www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/
Still think it's nothing to do with smoothness.
I think this is because he's producing a larger virtual sensor size by doing this and also altering the FOV of the lens but not the aperture.
C.Rangefinder's Flickr Stream
www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/
Still think it's nothing to do with smoothness.
CarlRadford
Member
Andrew Sanderson did an article in AG a couple of issues back on lenses on different size formats and the quality or effects of them - really interesting - not sure if you can get it from the AG website?
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I'll throw my (somewhat uneducated) guesses in (this is in relation specifically to 35mm film but could be applied to digital). Feel free to correct me.
At any given aperture for any given lens length you have shallower depth of field but the same angle of view in MF. So an 80mm lens covering 6x6 in MF is about the equivalent of a 44mm lens in 35mm but shallower depth of field.
So this often gives you, IMO, a more interesting/dramatic spacial relationship between OoF and in-focus picture elements.
Also, using the above numbers, you are placing the same "scene" (give or take) on a much larger negative. I gather this must mean that more information is recorded. This can mean more detail but detail also means more tonality.
So think of a portrait captured with a 50mm lens using a 35mm camera. Now think of the the very same portrait taken using an 80mm lens and 6x6 MF. On the 35mm neg let's say the left eye of the sitter occupies a space of one by two millimetres. On the MF neg that eye is going to occupy a space of say 3.6 by 7.2 millimetres. That's a huge difference.
Finally, the MF neg when printed does not have to be enlarged as much so it looks smoother, grain is less obvious, and all of the above is still true.
Conversely, when viewed on screen (though the difference may not be as great) the MF neg is being reduced more. Up to a point, reduction makes things look better. So all that tonality and detail is being reduced (some of it lost) but it still looks smoother.
Over at The Online Photographer a while ago, there was an article about negative size in relation to print size and the point at which going to a larger negative yielded a benefit. That may be of interest.
At any given aperture for any given lens length you have shallower depth of field but the same angle of view in MF. So an 80mm lens covering 6x6 in MF is about the equivalent of a 44mm lens in 35mm but shallower depth of field.
So this often gives you, IMO, a more interesting/dramatic spacial relationship between OoF and in-focus picture elements.
Also, using the above numbers, you are placing the same "scene" (give or take) on a much larger negative. I gather this must mean that more information is recorded. This can mean more detail but detail also means more tonality.
So think of a portrait captured with a 50mm lens using a 35mm camera. Now think of the the very same portrait taken using an 80mm lens and 6x6 MF. On the 35mm neg let's say the left eye of the sitter occupies a space of one by two millimetres. On the MF neg that eye is going to occupy a space of say 3.6 by 7.2 millimetres. That's a huge difference.
Finally, the MF neg when printed does not have to be enlarged as much so it looks smoother, grain is less obvious, and all of the above is still true.
Conversely, when viewed on screen (though the difference may not be as great) the MF neg is being reduced more. Up to a point, reduction makes things look better. So all that tonality and detail is being reduced (some of it lost) but it still looks smoother.
Over at The Online Photographer a while ago, there was an article about negative size in relation to print size and the point at which going to a larger negative yielded a benefit. That may be of interest.
myM8yogi
Well-known
I'm not sure I do see a huge difference actually.
Your shots look a lot like an M9 with a CV 35/1.2 shot wide open and cropped square.
Perhaps the biggest difference that I can see is in the much smoother gradation from focus to out of focus on your medium format. My setup seems to have a much sharper cutoff, and that is saying something in 35mm terms because the Nocton 1.2 is not renowned for a sharp transition like Zeiss glass (other than their biogon designs) often seems to have.
The actual plane of focus on your medium format also looks to be sharper than the Nocton is capable of, though that may be due to the increased resolution of the format/lens combination. But, in my mind this is not as significant as the transition to out of focus that I mentioned above.
Forgot to say that I also agree with the above comments regarding the relative depth of field in the two formats, and this is supported to some extent by my comparison with the fastest 35mm lens ever made for the 35mm format, allowing such a shallow depth of field on a wide-normal field of view.
Interesting topic.
Your shots look a lot like an M9 with a CV 35/1.2 shot wide open and cropped square.
Perhaps the biggest difference that I can see is in the much smoother gradation from focus to out of focus on your medium format. My setup seems to have a much sharper cutoff, and that is saying something in 35mm terms because the Nocton 1.2 is not renowned for a sharp transition like Zeiss glass (other than their biogon designs) often seems to have.
The actual plane of focus on your medium format also looks to be sharper than the Nocton is capable of, though that may be due to the increased resolution of the format/lens combination. But, in my mind this is not as significant as the transition to out of focus that I mentioned above.
Forgot to say that I also agree with the above comments regarding the relative depth of field in the two formats, and this is supported to some extent by my comparison with the fastest 35mm lens ever made for the 35mm format, allowing such a shallow depth of field on a wide-normal field of view.
Interesting topic.
Last edited:
bigeye
Well-known
Terrific pictures!
A well taken picture is a good picture, but I see a big difference between the miniature and medium formats.
Yes, tonality and wholesomeness.
Figure that the image from the teeny sensor is enlarged quite a few times to get to viewing size. The gaps between the dots are broadened and stuffed with computer-generated artificial fillers and preservatives.
The big 6x6 negative is only enlarged a little bit to viewing size. The density of the silver "sensors" is greater and there are many more of them. Fewer fillers and preservatives.
Eat right, photograph right.
.
A well taken picture is a good picture, but I see a big difference between the miniature and medium formats.
Yes, tonality and wholesomeness.
Figure that the image from the teeny sensor is enlarged quite a few times to get to viewing size. The gaps between the dots are broadened and stuffed with computer-generated artificial fillers and preservatives.
The big 6x6 negative is only enlarged a little bit to viewing size. The density of the silver "sensors" is greater and there are many more of them. Fewer fillers and preservatives.
Eat right, photograph right.
.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Take a look at this very talented gentleman's shots, taken with an M9 and tell me that the shot's stitched together don't look like 120.
I think this is because he's producing a larger virtual sensor size by doing this and also altering the FOV of the lens but not the aperture.
C.Rangefinder's Flickr Stream
www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/
Still think it's nothing to do with smoothness.
I disagree, among your own stuff I can see lots more going on in the mid tones than I can in the digi and 35mm, have you considered mid tone contrast? perhaps it's a response curve thing ... mind I did once mistake your cv 15mm and M8 for a mobile phone pic, so I could easily be wrong
Michael Markey
Veteran
Matus
Well-known
... because size matters
But honestly, I think it is a following reason. If you photograph the same subject with 35mm and say 6x7, than the subject is about twice the size on the 6x7 neg. So the relative size of the film structure (grain) to the subject size is by a factor of 2 different. So the gradations over certain part of the subject have twice as many "data" available. If you think per area not per linear size than the factor is 4. In other words you have more film for the same gradation so it comes out as more smooth. And because when you look at the both pictures (from 35mm and 6x7) you are not comparing the same film areas, but the same two parts of the image. The same small details that may start to get lost in grain on 35mm may still pop up with medium (or larger) format.
My wording is not good, but I hope it makes sense.
But honestly, I think it is a following reason. If you photograph the same subject with 35mm and say 6x7, than the subject is about twice the size on the 6x7 neg. So the relative size of the film structure (grain) to the subject size is by a factor of 2 different. So the gradations over certain part of the subject have twice as many "data" available. If you think per area not per linear size than the factor is 4. In other words you have more film for the same gradation so it comes out as more smooth. And because when you look at the both pictures (from 35mm and 6x7) you are not comparing the same film areas, but the same two parts of the image. The same small details that may start to get lost in grain on 35mm may still pop up with medium (or larger) format.
My wording is not good, but I hope it makes sense.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Take a look at this very talented gentleman's shots, taken with an M9 and tell me that the shot's stitched together don't look like 120.
I think this is because he's producing a larger virtual sensor size by doing this and also altering the FOV of the lens but not the aperture.
C.Rangefinder's Flickr Stream
www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/
Still think it's nothing to do with smoothness.
Wow, those are some striking images.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
This has to be my favourite explanation yet.
As for differences in lenses and resolving quality - you want to see the lens on my Yashica! It's full of cleaning marks flares for fun - even with a lens hood. But I like it for that, as I feel it gives a nice organic 'gnarly' look.
I also shoot with a Summilux ASPH on my M8. I think this is as close as I've been able to get to MF with it, but still I can see a clear difference.
Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
Vics
Veteran
It's just a much bigger piece of film. I was comparing a 5x7 print from my Leica the other day with a contact print from my Rollei (both Tri-X), and was stunned by how much the enlarged grain softens the image. When I shoot/develop/print MF pictures, I'm always surprised at that "Pro photography" feeling I get.
kossi008
Photon Counter
I also think it's the negative size. The DOF can be matched, the lens resolution is equal in terms of final print size (I proved this to myself once by comparing MTFs for the ZE/ZF 28/2 Distagon with the 50/4 Distagon for Hasselblad).
NickTrop
Veteran
Thee words: Technical Image Sophistication(c)
Technical Image Sophistication is a function - first and foremost, of the size of the film (or sensor) plane, but it is a synergy of the following attributes that results in images with greater sophistication:
1. Larger Film Plane (resulting in...)
2. More subtle gradation from the in-focus and intelligible area of interest to the out of focus/unintelligible regions
3. Same applies to color (or gray scale) gradations
4. Same applies to light-dark gradation
5. Better micro contrast
6. Less sharpness, better balanced images... (Warning Controversial Statement! Sometimes 35mm lenses are too sharp! Unnaturally so! If you're marveling at the "sharpness" of an image... said "sharpness" is a distraction from the overall image, functioning as a chromatic aberration!)
7. Greater resolution
All these attributes are additive. Not only are they additive, they are logarithmically additive... resulting in images that are more technically sophisticated than small format.
It is because of image sophistication that I prefer to use a pocketable 35mm film cameras - Oly XA specifically these days, rather than a compact digital caemra. ("Full Frame" in your pocket!(c)) And why you couldn't give me a "higer end" small format digital. Compact digitals - for all they offer, simply can not and do not produce images of sufficient technical sophistication due to their tiny sensor size. One has to bump to APS-C format in digital, and 35mm in film for images of sufficient technical image sophistication. Neither produce images as sophisticated as medium and large format film.
Others can, have, and will scoff at the concept of "image sophistication(c)" that I have invented... but that is the answer to your question and it's something you can definitely, clearly, and obviously see... Its "brother" is "Compositional Image Sophistication(c)" but this is user, not camera dependent. Also, "lens choice" is a vastly overrated item in this regard. - Alls you need is a competent working prime of any variety: tessar, plannar, sonnar, by a competent manufacturer... Pentax, Yash, Minolta, Zeiss, Oly, Nikon, Konica, Canon - whatever. Lens talk is largely nonsense... it's all about the film/sensor plane and its size. The only advantage modern lenses have over old ones is better correction of slight aberrations you probably would never see, and better coating technology that reduces flare whose only advantage is you don't (lterally) have to always shoot with a lens hood like with old lenses. This is true for every lens except Zeiss lenses with T* coating that adds a distinctive pleasing signature to lenses as evident in any picture shot with T* coating that I have ever seen, especially the "G" series advanced point-n-shoot cameras with rangefinder form factor.
Technical Image Sophistication is a function - first and foremost, of the size of the film (or sensor) plane, but it is a synergy of the following attributes that results in images with greater sophistication:
1. Larger Film Plane (resulting in...)
2. More subtle gradation from the in-focus and intelligible area of interest to the out of focus/unintelligible regions
3. Same applies to color (or gray scale) gradations
4. Same applies to light-dark gradation
5. Better micro contrast
6. Less sharpness, better balanced images... (Warning Controversial Statement! Sometimes 35mm lenses are too sharp! Unnaturally so! If you're marveling at the "sharpness" of an image... said "sharpness" is a distraction from the overall image, functioning as a chromatic aberration!)
7. Greater resolution
All these attributes are additive. Not only are they additive, they are logarithmically additive... resulting in images that are more technically sophisticated than small format.
It is because of image sophistication that I prefer to use a pocketable 35mm film cameras - Oly XA specifically these days, rather than a compact digital caemra. ("Full Frame" in your pocket!(c)) And why you couldn't give me a "higer end" small format digital. Compact digitals - for all they offer, simply can not and do not produce images of sufficient technical sophistication due to their tiny sensor size. One has to bump to APS-C format in digital, and 35mm in film for images of sufficient technical image sophistication. Neither produce images as sophisticated as medium and large format film.
Others can, have, and will scoff at the concept of "image sophistication(c)" that I have invented... but that is the answer to your question and it's something you can definitely, clearly, and obviously see... Its "brother" is "Compositional Image Sophistication(c)" but this is user, not camera dependent. Also, "lens choice" is a vastly overrated item in this regard. - Alls you need is a competent working prime of any variety: tessar, plannar, sonnar, by a competent manufacturer... Pentax, Yash, Minolta, Zeiss, Oly, Nikon, Konica, Canon - whatever. Lens talk is largely nonsense... it's all about the film/sensor plane and its size. The only advantage modern lenses have over old ones is better correction of slight aberrations you probably would never see, and better coating technology that reduces flare whose only advantage is you don't (lterally) have to always shoot with a lens hood like with old lenses. This is true for every lens except Zeiss lenses with T* coating that adds a distinctive pleasing signature to lenses as evident in any picture shot with T* coating that I have ever seen, especially the "G" series advanced point-n-shoot cameras with rangefinder form factor.
Last edited:
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
One of the most useful things an older and wiser photographer once told me was that depth of field doesn't just depend on aperture, but the size of the film/sensor you're recording onto.
f/11 on an 8x10 camera is a lot different than f/11 on a 35mm, and I suggest this is a big part of the reason why the 'look' differs. The film size, and the different construction of the optics would do it.
f/11 on an 8x10 camera is a lot different than f/11 on a 35mm, and I suggest this is a big part of the reason why the 'look' differs. The film size, and the different construction of the optics would do it.
myM8yogi
Well-known
Love the Lux ASPH shot.
fidget
Lemon magnet
Nice images Bob. Did you add a little (or even a lot of) vignette to them? My Yash 124 doesn't vignette that I have seen.
Dave
Dave
tlitody
Well-known
considering the amount of discussion on this forum about the character of different M-mount lenses, I'm amazed no one has suggested that medium format lenses have different character than 35mm lenses.
For example, the lens light gathering area of an 80mm lens at 5.6 on medium format is much bigger than a 50mm lens at 5.6 on a 35mm camera. I'm not talking about film area here but the amount of lens area that sends light to any single point on the film. Medium format lens have bigger diamaeter for same size f-stop. That will make captured information much greater for same point in subject And its made bigger on the film. So I think its not just magnification from printing. (it's analagous to the quality of a pixel being higher for some cameras than others.) Or you could consider that telescopes use massive light gathering areas to get the quality they require. It's not just magnification as you could use a small light gathering area and magnify that but you don't get the same quality as the larger light gathering area.
Having said that, if you work at optimising your 35mm with the right film and developers you can get fantastic looking images so I don't think that just moving to MF is some kind of magic bullet, especially when you consider its size and heft etc. For example, I have frequently heard people say a Mamiya 7 is the equal of Large Format. Well if MF can be the equal of LF then small format can be the equal of MF. With small format, film and developer control is everything for ultimate quality.
For example, the lens light gathering area of an 80mm lens at 5.6 on medium format is much bigger than a 50mm lens at 5.6 on a 35mm camera. I'm not talking about film area here but the amount of lens area that sends light to any single point on the film. Medium format lens have bigger diamaeter for same size f-stop. That will make captured information much greater for same point in subject And its made bigger on the film. So I think its not just magnification from printing. (it's analagous to the quality of a pixel being higher for some cameras than others.) Or you could consider that telescopes use massive light gathering areas to get the quality they require. It's not just magnification as you could use a small light gathering area and magnify that but you don't get the same quality as the larger light gathering area.
Having said that, if you work at optimising your 35mm with the right film and developers you can get fantastic looking images so I don't think that just moving to MF is some kind of magic bullet, especially when you consider its size and heft etc. For example, I have frequently heard people say a Mamiya 7 is the equal of Large Format. Well if MF can be the equal of LF then small format can be the equal of MF. With small format, film and developer control is everything for ultimate quality.
Last edited: