Why does Medium Format look so different to 35mm?

[MRohlfing]

actually no. The 1/1500 is a very old and not very relevant today ballpark number. Apparent DOF is very dependant on contrast and lens design.

Agreed! DOF is also dependant on the size of your prints (or computer screen?), the viewing distance, your eyes, what your brain accepts as sharp, .... so I guess you just have to find out yourself.

But that still won't tell you why MF looks better.

You are right! But in this thread, Nick's explanation is by far the best!

 

[C_R]

The problem is, Bob, that we are viewing both examples with relatively low res monitors over the internet.

An analogy would be comparing a vinyl record recording to an MP3 file and trying to discern the difference while using crappy headphones.

Good point. However, often you can see the difference even in our small web sized images here. The question is why ? Great discussion here.

Without the special DOF characteristics, it can be more difficult - try to find out what was MF and what was M9 here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98750

Carsten

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/
http://www.carstenranke.com

 

[Bobfrance]

The problem is, Bob, that we are viewing both examples with relatively low res monitors over the internet.

An analogy would be comparing a vinyl record recording to an MP3 file and trying to discern the difference while using crappy headphones.

You have a point Frank, though you must admit some differences are clearly apparent even on a web page.
Most of my shots only exist in this format. Obviously I see them both at a higher resolution when I work on them, however others see the distinction on the smaller web files. By and large my TLR shots seem far more popular than my 35mm shots. I'm merely trying to gain an insight into what causes these apparent differences, be it physical or emotional. i.e. do I shoot better with a TLR or is 120 simply better.

This is why I'm now enjoying the physically, philosophically and psychologically based answers that have featured in this thread.

I get the impression that I am not alone in experiencing this phenomenon. 🙂

 

[FrankS]

I notice a difference even in small scale prints (6x6inches and 4x6inches) made with my 35mm and medium format cameras. The differences are purely physical and not emotional.

 

[ferider]

It's funny how categorical opinions are on this subject when it all, very much depends on the equipment you use.

For instance, an 80/2.8 Planar on a Hasselblad, using, say, Neopan 400 and Rodinal at 1:50, will generate more DOF, and less resolution (for identical enlargement) that a 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH on Kodak BW400CN (both lenses wide open). So much so that the difference will be visible and in favor of the 35mm format even for small prints (unless you like the Neopan/Rodinal combo - which I do 🙂 ).

Of course, when you compare the 6x6 Planar to a Jupiter-3 (both wide open) and on the same film, for the same enlargement, the 6x6 will visibly outperform the Jupiter.

Then again, it's much for fun to own both a 6x6 Yashica and IIIc and Jupiter, instead of just ordering the Summilux ASPH.

YMMV. But the quality/format ratio is not trivial; like so many other things: it depends.

Roland.

 

[Joeys61]

Here's an analogy, audiophiles would be loathe to listen to MPG files(compressed audio). So, there are photographers that shoot medium format, film or digital, for the greater gradation of tonality, finer/non-existent grain, ability to handle enlargements.

 

[Doug]

I notice a difference even in small scale prints (6x6inches and 4x6inches) made with my 35mm and medium format cameras. The differences are purely physical and not emotional.

I haven't had prints smaller than 5x7 for a while, but certainly there's a visible difference there between MF film and 135 film. I'm not so sure I could be 100% reliable in a "blind" test, but when I notice an extra "richness" then it's with the MF print, even this small. I just figure it's the smaller ratio of enlargement, and there's more data represented.

Do we see the same difference with a given size print from smaller/larger digital sensors? I have no personal observations to share on this point. Not enlarging to the point of pixelization, I'd expect that the same additional "richness" would show up in the larger-sensor prints.

 

[C_R]

Do we see the same difference with a given size print from smaller/larger digital sensors? I have no personal observations to share on this point. Not enlarging to the point of pixelization, I'd expect that the same additional "richness" would show up in the larger-sensor prints.

Doug, I dont know how the print would compare but look at three examples, which I found very good in tonality for the given sensor size: one is from a Sigma DP2 sensor, one from the full frame M9, and one is a (virtual) sensor of 7 x 11 cm, created by a mosaic stitch from 36 M9 files.
There are visible differences, IMO:

#1

#2

#3

Guess what is what ?

Carsten
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38068178@N08/sets/
http://www.carstenranke.com

 

[bobbyrab]

I'd say #3 is the m9, it has that marmite pink wash it shares with the m8. #2 has more punch (lovely image btw), so i reckon this to be the multi stitch. Which would make #1 the sigma, but I'd never guess that by seeing the file in isolation. Interesting test actually, despite the virtual size of the image capture area, it's not as obvious as the recent thread of Australian mugshots, those had a clarity that arguably is still difficult to match either with film or digital. I remember speaking a few years ago with with a photographer who has made his own cameras to shoot rolls of large format film used by the meteorologic office, the negative is about 17"x10". He maintained that for ultimate sharpness you can't beat a glass plate neg, still used today as far as I know

 

[C_R]

Correct. BTW, the M9 shot is a bit unfair as it was artificial light and ISO 320.

Bigger is better, this is true for film and digital as well. I love landscape, and when worthwile I make some extra shots for a possible mosaic. Nice to have an MF camera available without extra weight and cost 🙂

One issue was not discussed here: film will always look different to digital not only because of grain versus pixel architecture but also because film is much thicker than the light sensitive part of the sensor. I chose the f:1 Nocti just becaue of its optical aberrations, comes closer to film than the modern Asph. lenses, IMO

 

[shadowfox]

Nice illustration Will and great example. Gear question. What FL was your gas pump shot.

That was taken with a 100mm lens at f/2.8 or somewhere close to it.

 

[Stuart John]

Here are two shots one from medium format 645 and the other from a D1h. They were shot years apart but I thought they might be interesting due to the similar subject matter. First the D1h.

Now the 645 shot..

Hope these are useful. Myself I see quallities that I prefere from the medium format shot even at these sizes.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Several years ago, at least 7 or 8 years now, I viewed images from a 100MPixel Digital Camera, monochrome CCD, that were amazing. It was a large area CCD sensor built for aerial recon, the image was spread out over a conference room table. It took the place of a film camera used for that purpose. The size of the sensor and the optics of the camera compared with a medium format film camera.

 

[tlitody]

Several years ago, at least 7 or 8 years now, I viewed images from a 100MPixel Digital Camera, monochrome CCD, that were amazing. It was a large area CCD sensor built for aerial recon, the image was spread out over a conference room table. It took the place of a film camera used for that purpose. The size of the sensor and the optics of the camera compared with a medium format film camera.

Why isn't it on the market?

 

[redisburning]

Why isn't it on the market?

probably because the military will order 15 gigantor CCDs in a heart beat at 150,000 each but there isnt really a market for that in general.

 

[tlitody]

but once the R&D has been done and the manufacturing machinery is made and operating, then subsequent units are cheap to make. Methinks its more likely the military doesn't want everyone having state of the art kit cos they'd lose their advantage.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

That technology has made it into the commercial world as the large CCD's used by Phase I and others. A price-point has to be made for the commercial market. The first sensor that I used cost $40,000 per copy after the non-recurring engineering cost. It had 32 elements, and was used in a digital Infrared scanner. That was made over 30 years ago. The next one required $1M of R&D for 240 elements.

 

[dfoo]

I really wish people wouldn't add really wide images to threads. It makes the thread very hard to read.

 

[tlitody]

I really wish people wouldn't add really wide images to threads. It makes the thread very hard to read.

I'll second that. Some forum software auto resizes to fit screen width.

 

[Stuart John]

Just use the scrol bars at the bottom of the screen. I can see all the responses and the pictures. It's just the side bar I can't see. By todays standards I have a rather small 19 inch CRT.