This is great. People don’t understand that there is a specific look to medium format. You can take a picture with a 43mm on an RZ67 in close quarters of a familiy of eight people standing next to eachother and the perspective makes it look like you are there.. like a painting. The main reason I sometimes - still - go through the pain of using 6X7 film is the perspective to fov-ratio with wide lenses in closish quarters. It feels huge
I'm trying to get my head round the medium format look: quick question for you if I may? In a nutshell, I think you are saying that crop factor may achieve "equivalent" field/frame of view, but the lens optics 'in play' are different, and so the depth of field is not the same nor is it resolved the same optically. Is that right? In which case, the simple FOV conversion maths only take account of field of view, not how that view is achieved.
It's easy. Just take a bunch of images and let the "experts" pick which ones are medium format. If you can tell the difference between those, then you should be able to tell the difference between full frame and APS-C or M43. Call it the "Medium Format Challenge" I'd like to see it.
As someone who loves to shoot medium format film I really appreciate this video. I also think the current obsession with resolution is a bit silly anyway because unless you are doing very technical photography where you need exact reproduction most of the time high res just means more time in post trying to fudge out imperfections in your subject.
@@HansRosemond Do you scan your film? From what I've researched if you do an A4/A3 optical print (photosensitive paper in the darkroom) and then scan it, the resolution is huge. There is way less film grain and the only limiting factor to resolution is the lens
For me, the difference between formats and what I choose to use has a more to do with the photographic process, or my workflow. An APS-C camera with a pancake type lens is easy for me to handle when pivoting to capture candid shots. A medium format camera allows me to get closer to my subjects without introducing ultra-wide angle lenses.
Photo-Me-Ike I see you, Ike. You could write off a Pentax 67II as a business expense though and I’d be surprised if you didn’t like it more for how you shoot. That or a TLR would be way easier to lug around with all your lights and digital gear too.
Finally, Thank you for making this video. Specifically, the comment "it is just physics". and I believe it is true for smartphone sensor vs APS-C or Full Frame. You just can't make a Oneplus 7Pro/iPHONE/Pixel as good as a APS-C or FF sensor. Its just physics.
Hans, you have spoken more sense in 10 minutes than a 100 other "medium format" digital vids and blogs. I started as an apprenticed press photographer in 1970. We had a Nikon outfit but still used a Rolleiflex and Yashicamat 2 1/4 square TLRs, can you believe. I can still recall the sublime images from the latter cameras. The Nikon was brilliant of course and the only choice if you needed tele and wideangle lenses, but the gorgeous tones from the TLRs was night and day difference to any 35mm image. No pixels to peep at in those days of course. All down to the film area utilised leading to increased gradation. Full 35mm frame digital is truly a marvel and far exceeds its film equivalent. I've tried the Fuji GF-X system against my Nikon D850 and 95% of the times I couldn't see a meaningful difference between similar images, even less when I printed some sample A3 prints. In fact recently I took another look at the favourite two prints that I had retained, one from each camera. I couldn't recall which was which so made a guess - I got it wrong! Enough said. Keep up the good work.
I’ve been around since the film days. The reason that you saw more difference from 35mm film to medium format films is that 35mm film did not have the quality as 120 roll film. As you pointed out, full frame digital censors are far superior to 35mm film. Ergo, the jump from full frame to medium format was more noticeable in film. Here is one for you. The real noticeable difference in quality in film was 4X5 (and above) view camera. There are photographers shooting 8x10 sheet film today and scanning them and these images compete very well with digital. When you get down to it there are many different considerations involved. I just went from the Canon 5DSR (50 megapixel)to the Fujifilm 100s. I did that because I am getting better resolution and tonality from a Camera that is only slightly larger than the full frame camera.
Thank you for your video, Hans. I like it a lot! Only one thing missing, the Phase One IQ4/XF sensor. I know it is not 60mm x 45mm, but it's the biggest sensor on the consumer market right now (meassuring 53.7mm x 40.4mm), and it's 2.5X bigger than 35mm "full-frame", so I thought it would be interesting to know that and to mention it. The down side is the price of that gear it's toooo high for most of us. Note aside, I also use a Mamiya, but the RB67. And in fact, there is a substantial difference against 35mm. Great job!
Film Grain is not a limiting factor of resolution. Stopped down medium format glass can way out-resolve anything digital right now especially when drum scanned, there are so many examples of this online. Medium format film wasnt just the highest resolution format of its time, it still is.
If you do an A4/A3 optical print (photosensitive paper in the darkroom) and then scan it there is way less film grain and the only limiting factor to resolution is the lens
Vincenzo Del Lama because it is print film, it’s not made to be scanned then printed. Chemical prints are the way to go. Regardless, I have a GX680 and that thing pushes stupid resolutions.
Tonality. A smooth tonal transition from low vales to high values. The lens to film/sensor distance is much greater in a medium format camera.. Therefore any tonal value of light entering the MF camera will experience more fall off within the camera due to the "inverse square law" before it reaches the film. Therefore this phenomena proportionally effects lower values more than higher values thus providing greater tonal separation at the film/sensor plane. For Example, In the real world you can photograph say a white wall, which will render as one tone over its entirety with 35mm or full frame digital. A medium format camera with say double the lens to film plane distance has the effect of separating the minute subtle tonal differences which are then recorded on the film/sensor. The larger the format the greater the lens to film plane difference and thus the greater the effect. Hence the tonal beauty of 16x20 large format. It has nothing to do with the lens or type of film/sensor used or the depth of field. It's all about light fall off within the camera and the lens film/sensor distance. Hence the "Medium Format Look". It's just physics and it's real..
What you are saying makes no sense to me. The light rays you are capturing in the photographic image originate from light sources and/or reflective surfaces of the objects in your scene, so the distance the light travels to the sensor/film plane is the same irrespective of the camera you are using.
@@itssoaztek4592 You can prove it yourself. It's the reason why you have to make a substantial exposure compensation when using a bellows extension or extension tubes. The light fall off within the camera, lens to film plane follows the inverse square law.
I have to disagree here, I spent years and years using 6x7cm film, processing B&W, C41, E6, B&W reversals, creating my own processing recipes and methods, scanning (high end scanners), printing, optical printing. 35mm digital has better tonality than MF digital. It doesn’t take away from the quality or enjoyment of using MF but the technology of photography has progressed and moved on, it is what it is. I do want to address resolution here, of course more resolution will give better tonality (if you can print that resolution) since transitions will be finer, the quality of resolution is much poorer in the film in MF vs 35mm digital. When you say that you’re getting x lp/mm out of the film and y lp/mm out of digital, the problem here is the quality of that resolution is so much poorer in the film, and that actually comes back to tonality and contrast. When you start approaching the films limits (system resolution combo of you film and lens and other factors, if your film and lens have equal resolution and everything else is perfect you’ll get 70% of that resolution, you need way more lens resolution than film resolution etc) the film is simply unable to transition well at such fine steps, what you see is that contrast of detail drops through the floor and bleeds into each other. So when you say that a particular film is x Lp/mm, that resolution is barely visible and hard to tell it’s even there, and that’s when rating the resolution from a high contrast test chart, in real world use it’s worse because fine detail does not cycle at high contrast, it’s low contrast and drops off much quicker than a test chart indicates. On digital, it’s able to maintain contrast all the way through (to whatever the lens can provide) and capable of making those fine transitions, the tonality is finer and cleaner. So when you say something like “I need a 60mp equivalent minimum to represent my 6x7cm image” yeah that may be true, because there is something that is just barely there at that resolution, but it doesn’t compare to a real 60mp digital image where it’s clearly there, it often doesn’t even compare to a 24mp digital image as the lower frequencies in the film image around 24mp and lower are more clearly there but still at reduced contrast and softness. The reason medium format prints so well is because you don’t need 60mp to print well, even 20 is great, once you go past a certain threshold of image quality it crosses that barrier of from what to amazing, 35mm film just can’t offer that in most films because of the same struggles as above just in a smaller format. 35mm digital prints amazingly well too. It doesn’t lack tonality, it beats out MF in that department. What you’re seeing is not a film vs digital difference, it is a difference between photographers. Photography is more accessible than ever, comparing some of the biggest names in photography to Joe Bloggs and his D800 obviously has its problems. Assigning false qualities to something and using it as a crutch is not good, quality photography comes from quality/skilled photographers, and not from gear. Reducing great photography to gear is absurd.
Jesus Christ, THANK YOU! Finally someone talks sense. It's crazy how so many people try to use scientific language and act like they know what they're talking about, yet they clearly miss so many points crucial to the subject. It's the same with vinyl vs CD discussion - vinyl looses in any scientific test, yet its' followers claim it's years ahead of any digital medium, as if physics didn't exist.
Since it is difficult to tell a full frame from medium format unless we're talking large prints, does that mean for digital delivery (facebook, instagram, whatever), medium format isn't worth the cost & effort? In other words, is medium format only worth the added cost and effort for large prints only? I like to believe that there's a difference between medium format and full frame, but I've seem some remarkable prints (digital and paper) from an a7RIV.
This past November I picked up a GFX 50S II after shooting APS-C for years. To be honest, I struggle to see a significant difference in the photos between the 50S II and XT-3. It's subtle at best. Pixel peeping the difference is obvious since the GFX has twice as many megapixels but less so when viewing the images globally. I was hoping to readily see the smooth tone shifts I've heard so much about. After all, the GFX sensor is 4x the size of an APS-C one so the difference in size isn't as negligible as Full Frame and GFX. I'm viewing the files on a 16" MacBook Pro -- which has a very nice, high resolution panel. I was hoping the IQ difference would be more obvious. Perhaps I need to print large to see it.
I see it between full-frame to aps-c, but can hardly explain it except to say gradations and tonality. If you didn’t see it between APS-C to Medium format, then stick with aps-c. Subject matter obviously matters too.
I like to explain to people the GFX system is a crop-sensored medium format sensor. Hopefully someday Fuji will come out with a 645 or 6x7 sized sensor.
The grain is smaller on medium format. On higher ISO is almost hard to notice and this is a huge advantage. Also the way the lenses are performing is important. Sharper, less distortion. You can also crop much more in certain situations when you need it.
There is one more aspect to look at with medium format. On a larger projection area the effect of Lens diffraction at higher f-Stop Numbers is less pronounced, so a given Image taken at for example f32 on a full frame sensor will be noticeably more soft than on a big 6x7 negative. Even when cropped to the same relative Image Size.
Thank you so much for sharing this video with the world! :) I think one other thing that isn't mentioned very often is "the viewfinder experience" of Medium Format. Modern viewfinders can sometimes present very taxing experiences on the eye, especially for those of us whose eyesight is getting worse. I personally REALLY enjoy the viewfinder of the old film MF cameras. It's almost like you're looking through a window. It's incredible, and no cameras I have tested so far compare. That by itself is super important, because if you can see the scene, you can get a better composition.
Don't you think that using a 645 lens, without added glass, on a Sony A7Rii or more allows you to use the middle of the lens where there is less Chromatic Aberration and distortion, than near the edges of the lens?
I shoot weddings with the GFX 50R and the Fuji X-T3. I have lenses that are really bright for the X-T3, yet the results are not even close. The focus fall-off of the GFX is incredible. I use cheap Canon 35mm lenses with it and the large sensor gives them a crazy dreamy look. But when it comes to speed, the APS-C is so much better and with AF. So there is a trade off.
Agree..... many people are talking down on medium format ....when you move closer to your subject, you have a better depth of field...making your subject pop
To mimic my old Autocord which had a 75mm lens at F3.5 I use the Canon EF50mm at F1.8 on an EOS R. Taking 3 shots with the camera sideways/portrait followed by stitching and 1:1 crop. DoF (if wide open) is slightly exceeded by the EF Lens. Sounds great? If I take a 20+ year old slide shot with the autocord, place it on a light table and eyeball it via a pentax loupe. Not even close. I'm "in" the scene wallowing in memories :)
This is why I didnt bother with fuji, I like the camera, but its just a bigger sensor (or baby medium) - hence why I shoot phase. the sensor size is so much closer. Also if I may mention, the medium format has another quality thats hard to replicate, that is the out of focus transition. this will be different with every camera and is dependent on the cone shape of the light from the exit of the lens to the camera sensor, also flange distance as a major part, so flange distance + rear moving element. So the circle of confusion on an out of focus area changes at a different rate from system to system. Medium formats tend to have a more narrow cone where as fullframe (and mirrorless) tend to have a wide cone.
Better tonality applies only to film medium format vs film 35mm. Tonality in digital cameras depends on resolution (if we’re talking about low ISO, of course). If we’re talking about digital cameras, there’s no medium format look unless you use very fast full frame lenses on it. There are two benefits in shooting medium format: 1. Higher resolution (though most people don’t need 100MP) and 2. Better ISO performance at the same aperture. The second one is questionable if you need to shoot with greater depth of field, because in that case you if you want similar to full frame FOV, you need to stop down the aperture more than on full frame, meaning you’re not getting better low light performance after all. I own both full frame and cropped medium format (GFX). The only advantage for me is the ability to use 1.4 lenses on GFX. That way it’s an upgrade similar to the jump from APS-C to full frame. For most photographers who don’t need the resolution or the crazy shallow DOF though, full frame cameras are much faster, cheaper and easier to use.
I have not finished the video but you answered my question. That is a question I have had for a few weeks. I am only recently involved in photography as a hobby but I happened across a video on medium formate film cameras. I loved the photos the guy had taken and what I saw was this tonality you mentioned. I could see additional colours as the colour became more intense and then on the other side as it became less so. That is my description of it but I was not sure if I had imagined it or not. Thank you. I really appreciate you mentioning it.
At last I've found this information about tonal range ) But what about newest lenses and sensors? May be they can solve the problem about tonality transition; can't find it yet.
I enjoyed that video Hans! It'll be interesting to see if camera makers ever end up making a 6x7 digital camera. I was just comparing the size of my Pentax 67 vs an EOS R with the 28-70mm lens and they're surprisingly similar, just different engineering choices on where that size sits (lens vs body).
Super late to this topic/video but I've been thinking about this concept and it got me wondering.. where do digital backs fit into this? I've been considering a GFX and this video helped give me a lot of clarity. Wondering now if the "medium format look" applies to shooting my RZ67 with a digital back? Any insight?
okay controversial opinion time; i believe the "medium format look" isnt real and you can achieve the same look on any camera given adequate control, with the exception of resolution of course. To me, the medium format look is the almost dreamy, flat look that the images have. shooting wide open on a medium format does produce an image that is difficult to get on a smaller image plane because a 1.9 on a mamiya is 645 is apprx a 1.3 on traditional 35mm format, but stopping down to maybe 8 and up is where the "medium format look" comes into play and the images, assuming appropriate backlighting in a studio almost glow, but are achievable on digital full frame and even apsc by cranking down that aperture to 11-16 and using much longer exposure times and focal lengths (and fog machines lmao). this is of course my opinion but ive gotten that surreal glow from just about every camera ive tried, given ive had enough time to set the scene correctly and know the sensor/lens well enough. one of the easiest cameras funnily enough to get that look on was the a7sII!
So all kind of nice but just the thing about resolution.... the good old story. Yes, true film is worse than digital as long as you talk in consumer level, like scanning with a flatbed. As soon as you step up to an HQ drum scan you can get 30.000x30.000px out of a 6x6 image with no problems. That's 900MP if you then shrink down the image (cause the 900MP seriously don´t make any sense in terms of quality and actual resolution) you can still end up with a good 200MP (just an approximation, no real math here) image (I know also V850 makes 100-200MP, but that's just interpolation and there will be a difference in the images). As far as I know, that's still head to head with nowadays Hasselblad and PhaseOne cameras. Anyway, the downside (at least for some people) here is, of course, the grain in the film image since nowadays industry wants to have clean editing options and the cost factor (Time is also a factor but too obvious). An HQ drum scan is expensive 60-150€ per image. Not to forget, that film originally was meant to be wet printed in the darkroom. However, there are "new" emulsions that reach extreme resolutions! So don´t misunderstand me, I love both formats I also shoot both, Digital as well as Analog but the resolution thing is simply not true. Maybe you are interested in reading about high-resolution films, such as Adox CMS 20II (this film claims to reach 500MP in 35mm film) www.adox.de/Media/cms20test.jpg | www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/ here more about the film. Anyway, all in all great video just wanted to point that out.
While it's true that a hq drum scan will outperform most digital sensors, at some point you have to weigh practicality and reality against the absolute limits of the technology. Most people either dont have the resources to get a drum scan or they don't even know drum scanners exist. Even for working professionals who regularly use film, a drum scan isn't part of regular workflow for the majority of their imagery. Rather, it is a one off procedure done for a specific frame for a specific reason. So yes, you're absolutely right. There are ways to squeeze out more information from a frame of film. But, at what point does practicality outweigh squeezing every last drop of resolution out of your images? For most people a drum scan just isn't worth the cost.
Interesting discussion. Depth of field, tonality, contrast are all lens qualities. Larger capture planes require larger lens which produce these qualities. Depth is Iris size, distance to subject, distance to background, magnification and aperture being the least influential variable. Tonality is how well the lens resolves between any two points of various contrast and contrast is determined by how the circle of confusion is projected onto the image plane. By default people associate these qualities with large sensors, but its misnomer in the sense that bigger with higher resolution require lens that naturally have more of these features. In that sense, this discussion is really about lens, not sensors or image planes.
It's really simple, if all this babble is needed to peddle MF it's sad. If there really was still a relevant difference today between 61mp FF and MF you would just have to show two images. Most people that are serious about photography have large very high resolution monitors and the difference would be instantly visible if the difference was significant enough. I shot film 6x8cm and 8x10 film and polaroid for decades. I still shoot 6x8cm film, but I am glad I got rid of my MF digital while it was still worth something used. It is irrelevant today. The game changers are two. First is the massive advancement in sensor quality. The Sony 61mp FF sensor is fantastic. The second difference is the total change in lens parameters in FF. The size, weight and cost of FF lenses has totally changed . Now that FF sesnors have reached such high quality and resolution the main camera manufacturers are making larger, heavier and more expensive lenses with exotic glass materials. This has elevated the quality of FF.
Thanks for posting this excellent video, Hans. One thing that you didn’t mention was color, and I am really curious about this (as I teeter on the fence, vis a vis moving to GFX from Canon). When you talk about tonality, and presumably it would be true with color, too, I wonder if we would really see the difference online, between 16 bit and 14 bit color space....? I have heard people talk about it online, but....I guess I really need to see the prints, side by side, with my own eyes. Anyway, I would be curious to hear your take about color (digitally, as opposed to film).
Love this video because in a complete idiot in the photo world and this was highly enjoyable just to hear the details and jargon of the true depth of photography which I missed entirely by buying my first camera only 4 years ago. Subbed
Sails Chong regularly shoots at F11, F16 on Phase One and Hasselblad. The biggest missing piece is dynamic range. Even with those sensors being 645 they only have about 13-15 stops of dynamic range. They've gotten the resolution but haven't gotten the Dynamic range. MF film can hit nearly 300mp but Hasselblad has gone passed that with a 400mp sensor and PhaseOne taps out at 151mp 645. 4x5 just so damn big and heavy, not many gonna bother with it. Film has a richness to color that digital doesn't have b/c you need stacked sensor's to even begin talking about color. The old phoveon sensor's had 3 stacked sensors and the colors are just beyond what film can do imo. Now we're entering an era where stacked sensors are going to become a thing. Otherwise Bayer interpolation won't cut it. CCD came closer than CMOS. Can't wait to get out of this CMOS era. The closest digital camera to film I think, is the Arri Alexa LF and 35 and those are small sensor's.
There is no way I would ever call a Fuji GFX a medium format camera. That's just marketing. If we're talking digital medium format, it's either the Hasselblad H6D100C or the Phase One Q4 150
I think what people keep getting confused about the "look" of medium and large format is not exactly the difference in DOF, but its the level of compression. for example if youre using a 6x7 105mm, if has the dof of a 105mm, but the compression of a 50, which has a drastically different look which is why you cant compensate on a 35mm with a 50mm at f/.95.
Isn't it the other way round? With a 105 on MF you get an angle of view equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 135 camera but the compression stays that of a 105 lens.
@@alexander.starbuck no. Look up pictures with medium format camera for examples. Compression is determined by the distance from subject, therefore the wider angle equivalent in medium format will have less compression. You can look at the work of Lewis Hine. He used a 4x5 camera but the principles still apply.
Thank you I have been trying to explain this before to people and some how they don't get it. I wanted a digital Medium format until I found out the sensor is just not as big sooooo there isnt going to be that big of a difference.
Nice video. At 8 x10 print size I couldn’t see a (dramatic) difference between medium format and 35mm film prints. However, particularly with high resolution scans, I notice everything you mentioned. For me personally, the biggest two improvements I can notice are the more flattering FOV at the same mm (hope I’m saying that right) and the “tones” with black and white. 4x5 and 8x10 film in black and white have amazing “tonality.” Makes me want to shoot large format. Also, great shots as usual.
Besides that the crop factors numbers all are wrong, the video is good and a perfect explanation of the systems and digital vs film also. But there are some digital backs actually with a “real” medium format sensor. I shoot a lot of gfx also, and I decided to buy a 645 (film) and a 67 to get back that amazing look. Its funny because film now is getting hyped again, and it’s becoming a standard also.
I keep hearing people talking about how medium format has a "smoother tonality" (like you do here at 3:45). Maximum tonality can never be greater than the number of pixels on a sensor. No pixel can capture more than one "tone". Therefore, how is a medium format sensor capturing more "tones" than a full frame sensor using an equal number of pixels?
It's because of the pixel pitch and medium format uses 16bit/14bit. Just compare that to the generic aps-c sensor. Or try something like the foveon sensors.
As Gavin said, it's to do with bit depth. FF sensors record in 14 bit, whereas medium format sensors can record in 16 bit. 16 bit can display a lot more colours, so the transition, say for example, from blue to yellow, will be smoother. Normally, that wouldn't really be detectable, but if you really push the image in post to extremes, then you could notice it.
@@randytesch7664 it can, though. Suppose, you get the colour transition from a small section of sky in the picture. Suppose, it only takes up 5% of the image. The 16 bit file will have a smoother transition.
@@robiulahmed I didn't want to argue with you, I am only a theoretical physicist. This is my website after over 50 years as a very serious photographer. rstesch.smugmug.com/Portraits/Study/
Not sure I understand the tonality argument. If you have a 60MP full frame vs a 50MP medium format sensor, how can the medium format have better tonality? Clearly the full frame sensor has more pixels to spread the tones across. I can buy the argument that a medium format sensor would have a better dynamic range per pixel though, due to larger pixel size and how they are designed.
This is what no one talks about. Most of the time I hear about depth of field and resolution, but the aforementioned compression is the game changer for me.
There's a lot of conflicting information about this floating around. "Compression" is purely related to field of view, i.e. a 100mm lens on a full frame camera and a 300mm lens on a 4x5 camera will have identical perspective compression. Likewise, cropping the field of view of a 24mm lens on a full frame camera to the equivalent field of view of an 85mm lens on the same camera (with the camera in the same place) will give you exactly identical compression - you will only lose resolution. "Compression" is not a property of the focal length, it is a property of perspective and field of view. Just imagine the image circle at the back of a medium format camera projecting onto a piece of 6x7 film. Now imagine you swap that sheet of film in the back of that camera out for one that is 35mm size - nothing has changed but the crop/field of view. Same compression, same image, same depth of field, you've simply chopped off the sides, top and bottom.
The most important factor is the difference in compression of different focal lengths to get the same field of view. This is also the hardest subject to explain to beginners. You can't have the same look of 50mm on FF with 32mm APS-C, even though the field of view is the same.
Exactly. This is exactly what people skip over when they try to “disprove” the full-frame look. It’s disingenuous to pretend the formats don’t look different.
I agree with you here. Except for that PhaseOne does make a 645 digital which is FX to 645 film. I believe that Hasselblad does as well. Good video. I love the Mamiya RZ67.
I just have one question. Which looks better on paper not on a digital device. Film or digital. In my opinion digital will blow film out the frame on a digital device. On paper digital sucks.
I'd say film just looks nicer than digital regardless of whether it's on a digital device or on paper. However, with enough post processing, digital could look just as good, but with higher resolution. Personally, if you want the film look, it's better to shoot film.
I agree with your opinion, but your size comparison data can be manipulated to serve a narrative. You put APS-C to FF is 2.3x, FF to GFX 1.7x. But the 1x base in this comparison is not the same. It's like saying from 20 yr old to 40 yr old it's 2x, and from 40 yr old to 80 yr old is also 2x, therefore, the age gain is the same. But in real life, you would say age 20 is 0.5x of 40, and age 60 is 1.5x of 40, hence age 20 to 40 is the same age gain as 40 to 60, which is 0.5x of 40. For your comparison chart, it should be APS-C (nikon) is 0.43x of FF. GFX is 1.67x of FF, 645 is 2.69x of FF, and 67 is 4.54x of FF, based on the image area definition from wikipedia on each format.
Medium format film is just better and that's why so many people are running towards it. It's a more affordable way of getting really stunning images (say shoot 10 6x7 images per 2 weeks) than a phase one system. The separation (not shallow dof) is better on medium format because a longer lens will render wider images than what a 35mm sensor will do.
Missing that it’s the size of the pixels. You can shove more small pixels into the smaller space and call it the same megapixels. But it isn’t the same is it. GFX has better tones because of a larger sensor and larger pixels. has better dynamic range. It’s better period. Larger than full frame is the tag line. That is the look.. You can draw many similarities across formats for similar looks because mostly the lenses remind you of another brand or format look. But as far as tonality it is pixel size and dynamic range.
As a GFX50S owner it kinda hurts to hear this 😭😭 however I do own a Pentax 67 also i it's true, the look is a bit different. I will say however that the difference isn't night and day to me.
I'm 100% pro-film for medium format, I'm a RZ67 II shooter, but you forgot the phase one sensors that actually shoot a 645 sensor size. They're incredibly expensive, prohibitively so, but they are 645 and do give a lot in terms of resolution, tonality, and depth of field (just like the mamiya 645's the platforms based on). The new Fuji's offer that greater color depth, which is fantastic, but the phase one's are in another league.
Very true. The IQ4 and Hasselblad H6D are close to true 645 and are amazing. For us mere mortals, though, the crop medium format sensors will have to do!
Hans Rosemond 100%, they’re insanely high priced. For commercial work though they’re certainly rentable though if a clients understands the gains. Great video either way, man. Love to see the Medium Format love.
You’re clearly ignoring the Hasselblads and phaseones which have almost exactly a 645 size sensor, obviously if you just look at the budget medium format cameras you’ll obviously be disappointed when comparing it to medium format film
At no point in this video did you explain what the medium format look was...you called it a "je ne c'est quoi". Meaning you don't know what it is. Which means you're full of it. I appreciate that in the film world. there is an obvious advantage to larger, developable surface area, you can't argue with the physics. But in digital photography, there is no medium format look. It's physics. Your "look" is defined by the interpretation of voltages across microscopic dots on the sensor, which is a function of the light flux at each diode. This can be compensated for, regardless of the sensor, whether it be APS-C, FF, or M4/3, and even Medium. If you can do a video actually explaining what you mean by tonality in the digital format, that would be appreciated. As it is, you waved your hands, said tonality a whole bunch, never differentiated explicitly between film and digital, and just said "so obviously, therefore, there is a Medium format look". Physics strongly disagrees with you on this one.
Totally, i love photography but the more i live a realise that been natural is what make me happy and i find film more natural. There is a lot of "waste" of time in digital sometimes making a bad picture trying to be good.
I love shooting film but I think there is nothing "natural" about photography. In my opinion, "natural" is looking with your eyes; everything else is artificial one way or another.
Curious why aspect ratio of the original image does not come into your definition of "Look". . . . clearly framing of the original image influences the end result. One can argue that any image can be cropped to any aspect ratio BUT then you are beginning to eliminate the other aspect of the "medium format look" you DID include - resolution.
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Tonality doesn't seem to be something technical that can separate MF from FF...
thansk for the video. now I want to buy a MF film camera haha. I would like know if shooting video with a medium format lense on my GH5 + metabones speedbooster 0.64x will make my footage look different
I shoot both digital medium format and good old film, 67. Whilst not as pronounced on digital due to the relatively small sensor, optical compression is still better than full frame. A 50mm lens on full frame has the same optical distortion characteristics as a 50mm on my 67, however the field of view is roughly that of a 24mm. I guess depth of field and optical compression are two sides of the same coin but that is why I still shoot film. I cannot get that 67 look digitally.
Great video. Loved it. I concur with everything you said. I would like to add that there are “full frame” digital sensors, like the Phase Ones. I own one of them, it´s a real 6x4,5 and you can notice de difference. Personal opinion here: sensors smaller than 6x4,5 are not medium format. They are great, but more marketing than real.
Because there is not much difference in those Super Full Frame sensors (for example: fuji gfx, hassel's X system). It's just got bigger to contain more pixel to make more resolution. If design of sensor is same as FF, APS-C, MFT what could be different? Only thing they truly offer beyond current FF cameras is that they can take 100mp picture in single shot. The compression? depends on the distance, not by the lens, nor the size of sensor. Color and tonality? so easy to manipulate in these days. And most people think these are the differences between the sensors. I think Phase one insists to use the big sized sensor for a reason. if smaller real estate can perform the same as larger sensor(P65+, IQ4). they would be the first company that has done it. I agree with your opinion. Those tiny medium formats should be called Super full frame or Micro 645.
I am glad that you mentioned GFX and the real deal film medium format. You forgot the Hasselbald H6 and Phase One. which are close to Film Medium Format. The GFX is bloated Fullframe for me.
Missing a big point on depth of field in medium format. A MF 65mm 5.6 lens can get shallow DoF at far greater lens-to-subject distances than a 35mm equivalent focal length of 28mm regardless of how fast that 28mm lens is. The MF look is a wide angle photo with a person shown head to toe, 2 meters from the lens with super shallow DoF. Just is not possible with a 28mm lens on 35mm camera in which a photo of a full human at 2 meters from the lens would be virtually focused at infinity and offer null DoF.
In my experience, having shot with a 65mm lens on 6x7, that just isnt the case. Plug in the numbers at www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html DOF is significantly more shallow for a 35mm camera shooting at 1.4 at 28mm than a 65mm on 6x7 at 5.6.
What about the infamous subtler transition from in-focus to out of focus areas in medium format? Considering equivalent apertures at the same angle of view. Is there any truth to that?
FF vs Phase One has 2.5 times difference which is big enough. Also you sound like you haven’t used GFX100 because the tonality and dynamic range is much much better than FF cameras.
Hans Rosemond Yes you should try because after you try it , you will see GFX100 has better sharpness than your 6*7 and the dynamic range is almost good as your 6*7 camera.
@@GKhanKutar Yes, as I've said many times, digital medium format is technically better than film in sharpness and clarity. That was never in question, at least by me.
Well, also, like you were saying (but also kind of skipped over) a 50mm lens on FF35 has the same fov as 100mm on medium format... and obviously 50mm and 100mm lenses look different in the way they bend light. To sum up the full-frame or medium format look would be “deep, yet wide”
With a 6x7 film camera the look is real, digital MF, not so much. Not worth it for me. I sold the GFX I had and lost money on it. The only regret was buying it in the first place.
If the medium format look is a hoax then there are a lot of professional and amateur’s who been spending Millions of dollars for that look that you are asking or saying is a ‘HOAX’.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
This is great. People don’t understand that there is a specific look to medium format. You can take a picture with a 43mm on an RZ67 in close quarters of a familiy of eight people standing next to eachother and the perspective makes it look like you are there.. like a painting. The main reason I sometimes - still - go through the pain of using 6X7 film is the perspective to fov-ratio with wide lenses in closish quarters. It feels huge
I'm trying to get my head round the medium format look: quick question for you if I may? In a nutshell, I think you are saying that crop factor may achieve "equivalent" field/frame of view, but the lens optics 'in play' are different, and so the depth of field is not the same nor is it resolved the same optically. Is that right? In which case, the simple FOV conversion maths only take account of field of view, not how that view is achieved.
That is not true. Compression depends on the distance from the subject.
It's easy. Just take a bunch of images and let the "experts" pick which ones are medium format. If you can tell the difference between those, then you should be able to tell the difference between full frame and APS-C or M43. Call it the "Medium Format Challenge" I'd like to see it.
As someone who loves to shoot medium format film I really appreciate this video. I also think the current obsession with resolution is a bit silly anyway because unless you are doing very technical photography where you need exact reproduction most of the time high res just means more time in post trying to fudge out imperfections in your subject.
I've been shooting medium format for years. Nothing but true happiness with every click.
I used to use a Fuji GW690III and even the most mundane subjects became sublime! ❤️
I tried a GW690 a while back but the lens was severely back focused. Other than that I liked the camera.
@@HansRosemond Do you scan your film? From what I've researched if you do an A4/A3 optical print (photosensitive paper in the darkroom) and then scan it, the resolution is huge. There is way less film grain and the only limiting factor to resolution is the lens
To the art directors and photographers they can tell. But to most people they don’t care.
For me, the difference between formats and what I choose to use has a more to do with the photographic process, or my workflow. An APS-C camera with a pancake type lens is easy for me to handle when pivoting to capture candid shots. A medium format camera allows me to get closer to my subjects without introducing ultra-wide angle lenses.
Good talk. I own a Mamiya Pro TL and looking to upgrade to a RB67. I'm in it for the "look" and the quality that comes with film!
Photo-Me-Ike I see you, Ike. You could write off a Pentax 67II as a business expense though and I’d be surprised if you didn’t like it more for how you shoot. That or a TLR would be way easier to lug around with all your lights and digital gear too.
Finally, Thank you for making this video. Specifically, the comment "it is just physics". and I believe it is true for smartphone sensor vs APS-C or Full Frame. You just can't make a Oneplus 7Pro/iPHONE/Pixel as good as a APS-C or FF sensor. Its just physics.
Hans, you have spoken more sense in 10 minutes than a 100 other "medium format" digital vids and blogs. I started as an apprenticed press photographer in 1970. We had a Nikon outfit but still used a Rolleiflex and Yashicamat 2 1/4 square TLRs, can you believe. I can still recall the sublime images from the latter cameras. The Nikon was brilliant of course and the only choice if you needed tele and wideangle lenses, but the gorgeous tones from the TLRs was night and day difference to any 35mm image. No pixels to peep at in those days of course. All down to the film area utilised leading to increased gradation. Full 35mm frame digital is truly a marvel and far exceeds its film equivalent. I've tried the Fuji GF-X system against my Nikon D850 and 95% of the times I couldn't see a meaningful difference between similar images, even less when I printed some sample A3 prints. In fact recently I took another look at the favourite two prints that I had retained, one from each camera. I couldn't recall which was which so made a guess - I got it wrong! Enough said. Keep up the good work.
I’ve been around since the film days. The reason that you saw more difference from 35mm film to medium format films is that 35mm film did not have the quality as 120 roll film. As you pointed out, full frame digital censors are far superior to 35mm film. Ergo, the jump from full frame to medium format was more noticeable in film. Here is one for you. The real noticeable difference in quality in film was 4X5 (and above) view camera. There are photographers shooting 8x10 sheet film today and scanning them and these images compete very well with digital. When you get down to it there are many different considerations involved. I just went from the Canon 5DSR (50 megapixel)to the Fujifilm 100s. I did that because I am getting better resolution and tonality from a Camera that is only slightly larger than the full frame camera.
Thank you for your video, Hans. I like it a lot! Only one thing missing, the Phase One IQ4/XF sensor.
I know it is not 60mm x 45mm, but it's the biggest sensor on the consumer market right now (meassuring 53.7mm x 40.4mm), and it's 2.5X bigger than 35mm "full-frame", so I thought it would be interesting to know that and to mention it.
The down side is the price of that gear it's toooo high for most of us.
Note aside, I also use a Mamiya, but the RB67. And in fact, there is a substantial difference against 35mm.
Great job!
Haha yeah, I left those out of the video accidently, but mentioned them in an article on Fstoppers. Glad you liked the video!
Film Grain is not a limiting factor of resolution. Stopped down medium format glass can way out-resolve anything digital right now especially when drum scanned, there are so many examples of this online. Medium format film wasnt just the highest resolution format of its time, it still is.
If you do an A4/A3 optical print (photosensitive paper in the darkroom) and then scan it there is way less film grain and the only limiting factor to resolution is the lens
Vincenzo Del Lama because it is print film, it’s not made to be scanned then printed. Chemical prints are the way to go. Regardless, I have a GX680 and that thing pushes stupid resolutions.
Tonality. A smooth tonal transition from low vales to high values.
The lens to film/sensor distance is much greater in a medium format camera.. Therefore any tonal value of light entering the MF camera will experience more fall off within the camera due to the "inverse square law" before it reaches the film. Therefore this phenomena proportionally effects lower values more than higher values thus providing greater tonal separation at the film/sensor plane. For Example, In the real world you can photograph say a white wall, which will render as one tone over its entirety with 35mm or full frame digital. A medium format camera with say double the lens to film plane distance has the effect of separating the minute subtle tonal differences which are then recorded on the film/sensor.
The larger the format the greater the lens to film plane difference and thus the greater the effect. Hence the tonal beauty of 16x20 large format. It has nothing to do with the lens or type of film/sensor used or the depth of field. It's all about light fall off within the camera and the lens film/sensor distance. Hence the "Medium Format Look". It's just physics and it's real..
What you are saying makes no sense to me. The light rays you are capturing in the photographic image originate from light sources and/or reflective surfaces of the objects in your scene, so the distance the light travels to the sensor/film plane is the same irrespective of the camera you are using.
@@itssoaztek4592 You can prove it yourself. It's the reason why you have to make a substantial exposure compensation when using a bellows extension or extension tubes. The light fall off within the camera, lens to film plane follows the inverse square law.
@@jonjanson8021 Thanks! That's a very good point 👍
I have to disagree here, I spent years and years using 6x7cm film, processing B&W, C41, E6, B&W reversals, creating my own processing recipes and methods, scanning (high end scanners), printing, optical printing. 35mm digital has better tonality than MF digital. It doesn’t take away from the quality or enjoyment of using MF but the technology of photography has progressed and moved on, it is what it is. I do want to address resolution here, of course more resolution will give better tonality (if you can print that resolution) since transitions will be finer, the quality of resolution is much poorer in the film in MF vs 35mm digital. When you say that you’re getting x lp/mm out of the film and y lp/mm out of digital, the problem here is the quality of that resolution is so much poorer in the film, and that actually comes back to tonality and contrast. When you start approaching the films limits (system resolution combo of you film and lens and other factors, if your film and lens have equal resolution and everything else is perfect you’ll get 70% of that resolution, you need way more lens resolution than film resolution etc) the film is simply unable to transition well at such fine steps, what you see is that contrast of detail drops through the floor and bleeds into each other. So when you say that a particular film is x Lp/mm, that resolution is barely visible and hard to tell it’s even there, and that’s when rating the resolution from a high contrast test chart, in real world use it’s worse because fine detail does not cycle at high contrast, it’s low contrast and drops off much quicker than a test chart indicates. On digital, it’s able to maintain contrast all the way through (to whatever the lens can provide) and capable of making those fine transitions, the tonality is finer and cleaner. So when you say something like “I need a 60mp equivalent minimum to represent my 6x7cm image” yeah that may be true, because there is something that is just barely there at that resolution, but it doesn’t compare to a real 60mp digital image where it’s clearly there, it often doesn’t even compare to a 24mp digital image as the lower frequencies in the film image around 24mp and lower are more clearly there but still at reduced contrast and softness. The reason medium format prints so well is because you don’t need 60mp to print well, even 20 is great, once you go past a certain threshold of image quality it crosses that barrier of from what to amazing, 35mm film just can’t offer that in most films because of the same struggles as above just in a smaller format. 35mm digital prints amazingly well too. It doesn’t lack tonality, it beats out MF in that department. What you’re seeing is not a film vs digital difference, it is a difference between photographers. Photography is more accessible than ever, comparing some of the biggest names in photography to Joe Bloggs and his D800 obviously has its problems. Assigning false qualities to something and using it as a crutch is not good, quality photography comes from quality/skilled photographers, and not from gear. Reducing great photography to gear is absurd.
Jesus Christ, THANK YOU! Finally someone talks sense. It's crazy how so many people try to use scientific language and act like they know what they're talking about, yet they clearly miss so many points crucial to the subject. It's the same with vinyl vs CD discussion - vinyl looses in any scientific test, yet its' followers claim it's years ahead of any digital medium, as if physics didn't exist.
Since it is difficult to tell a full frame from medium format unless we're talking large prints, does that mean for digital delivery (facebook, instagram, whatever), medium format isn't worth the cost & effort? In other words, is medium format only worth the added cost and effort for large prints only?
I like to believe that there's a difference between medium format and full frame, but I've seem some remarkable prints (digital and paper) from an a7RIV.
This past November I picked up a GFX 50S II after shooting APS-C for years. To be honest, I struggle to see a significant difference in the photos between the 50S II and XT-3. It's subtle at best. Pixel peeping the difference is obvious since the GFX has twice as many megapixels but less so when viewing the images globally. I was hoping to readily see the smooth tone shifts I've heard so much about. After all, the GFX sensor is 4x the size of an APS-C one so the difference in size isn't as negligible as Full Frame and GFX. I'm viewing the files on a 16" MacBook Pro -- which has a very nice, high resolution panel. I was hoping the IQ difference would be more obvious. Perhaps I need to print large to see it.
I see it between full-frame to aps-c, but can hardly explain it except to say gradations and tonality. If you didn’t see it between APS-C to Medium format, then stick with aps-c. Subject matter obviously matters too.
I like to explain to people the GFX system is a crop-sensored medium format sensor. Hopefully someday Fuji will come out with a 645 or 6x7 sized sensor.
The grain is smaller on medium format. On higher ISO is almost hard to notice and this is a huge advantage. Also the way the lenses are performing is important. Sharper, less distortion.
You can also crop much more in certain situations when you need it.
You said dont argue .. but on the resolving power 6x9 still has the edge (just) 125mp approx
There is one more aspect to look at with medium format. On a larger projection area the effect of Lens diffraction at higher f-Stop Numbers is less pronounced, so a given Image taken at for example f32 on a full frame sensor will be noticeably more soft than on a big 6x7 negative. Even when cropped to the same relative Image Size.
Thank you so much for sharing this video with the world! :) I think one other thing that isn't mentioned very often is "the viewfinder experience" of Medium Format. Modern viewfinders can sometimes present very taxing experiences on the eye, especially for those of us whose eyesight is getting worse. I personally REALLY enjoy the viewfinder of the old film MF cameras. It's almost like you're looking through a window. It's incredible, and no cameras I have tested so far compare. That by itself is super important, because if you can see the scene, you can get a better composition.
Don't you think that using a 645 lens, without added glass, on a Sony A7Rii or more allows you to use the middle of the lens where there is less Chromatic Aberration and distortion, than near the edges of the lens?
I shoot weddings with the GFX 50R and the Fuji X-T3. I have lenses that are really bright for the X-T3, yet the results are not even close. The focus fall-off of the GFX is incredible. I use cheap Canon 35mm lenses with it and the large sensor gives them a crazy dreamy look. But when it comes to speed, the APS-C is so much better and with AF. So there is a trade off.
Agree..... many people are talking down on medium format ....when you move closer to your subject, you have a better depth of field...making your subject pop
To mimic my old Autocord which had a 75mm lens at F3.5 I use the Canon EF50mm at F1.8 on an EOS R. Taking 3 shots with the camera sideways/portrait followed by stitching and 1:1 crop. DoF (if wide open) is slightly exceeded by the EF Lens. Sounds great? If I take a 20+ year old slide shot with the autocord, place it on a light table and eyeball it via a pentax loupe. Not even close. I'm "in" the scene wallowing in memories :)
This is why I didnt bother with fuji, I like the camera, but its just a bigger sensor (or baby medium) - hence why I shoot phase. the sensor size is so much closer.
Also if I may mention, the medium format has another quality thats hard to replicate, that is the out of focus transition. this will be different with every camera and is dependent on the cone shape of the light from the exit of the lens to the camera sensor, also flange distance as a major part, so flange distance + rear moving element. So the circle of confusion on an out of focus area changes at a different rate from system to system. Medium formats tend to have a more narrow cone where as fullframe (and mirrorless) tend to have a wide cone.
Better tonality applies only to film medium format vs film 35mm. Tonality in digital cameras depends on resolution (if we’re talking about low ISO, of course).
If we’re talking about digital cameras, there’s no medium format look unless you use very fast full frame lenses on it. There are two benefits in shooting medium format: 1. Higher resolution (though most people don’t need 100MP) and 2. Better ISO performance at the same aperture.
The second one is questionable if you need to shoot with greater depth of field, because in that case you if you want similar to full frame FOV, you need to stop down the aperture more than on full frame, meaning you’re not getting better low light performance after all.
I own both full frame and cropped medium format (GFX). The only advantage for me is the ability to use 1.4 lenses on GFX. That way it’s an upgrade similar to the jump from APS-C to full frame.
For most photographers who don’t need the resolution or the crazy shallow DOF though, full frame cameras are much faster, cheaper and easier to use.
I have not finished the video but you answered my question. That is a question I have had for a few weeks. I am only recently involved in photography as a hobby but I happened across a video on medium formate film cameras. I loved the photos the guy had taken and what I saw was this tonality you mentioned. I could see additional colours as the colour became more intense and then on the other side as it became less so. That is my description of it but I was not sure if I had imagined it or not. Thank you. I really appreciate you mentioning it.
It would have been helpful to include some sample photos to illustrate what you are talking about.
At last I've found this information about tonal range ) But what about newest lenses and sensors? May be they can solve the problem about tonality transition; can't find it yet.
Perfect explanation. You are the only one nailing the tonality issue. The rest can be achieved by compensating.
I enjoyed that video Hans! It'll be interesting to see if camera makers ever end up making a 6x7 digital camera. I was just comparing the size of my Pentax 67 vs an EOS R with the 28-70mm lens and they're surprisingly similar, just different engineering choices on where that size sits (lens vs body).
Super late to this topic/video but I've been thinking about this concept and it got me wondering.. where do digital backs fit into this? I've been considering a GFX and this video helped give me a lot of clarity. Wondering now if the "medium format look" applies to shooting my RZ67 with a digital back? Any insight?
okay controversial opinion time; i believe the "medium format look" isnt real and you can achieve the same look on any camera given adequate control, with the exception of resolution of course. To me, the medium format look is the almost dreamy, flat look that the images have. shooting wide open on a medium format does produce an image that is difficult to get on a smaller image plane because a 1.9 on a mamiya is 645 is apprx a 1.3 on traditional 35mm format, but stopping down to maybe 8 and up is where the "medium format look" comes into play and the images, assuming appropriate backlighting in a studio almost glow, but are achievable on digital full frame and even apsc by cranking down that aperture to 11-16 and using much longer exposure times and focal lengths (and fog machines lmao). this is of course my opinion but ive gotten that surreal glow from just about every camera ive tried, given ive had enough time to set the scene correctly and know the sensor/lens well enough. one of the easiest cameras funnily enough to get that look on was the a7sII!
You explained it in a simple way. I could feel that difference, but I couldn't understand what difference I saw. Thanks a lot
So all kind of nice but just the thing about resolution.... the good old story. Yes, true film is worse than digital as long as you talk in consumer level, like scanning with a flatbed. As soon as you step up to an HQ drum scan you can get 30.000x30.000px out of a 6x6 image with no problems. That's 900MP if you then shrink down the image (cause the 900MP seriously don´t make any sense in terms of quality and actual resolution) you can still end up with a good 200MP (just an approximation, no real math here) image (I know also V850 makes 100-200MP, but that's just interpolation and there will be a difference in the images). As far as I know, that's still head to head with nowadays Hasselblad and PhaseOne cameras. Anyway, the downside (at least for some people) here is, of course, the grain in the film image since nowadays industry wants to have clean editing options and the cost factor (Time is also a factor but too obvious). An HQ drum scan is expensive 60-150€ per image. Not to forget, that film originally was meant to be wet printed in the darkroom. However, there are "new" emulsions that reach extreme resolutions! So don´t misunderstand me, I love both formats I also shoot both, Digital as well as Analog but the resolution thing is simply not true. Maybe you are interested in reading about high-resolution films, such as Adox CMS 20II (this film claims to reach 500MP in 35mm film) www.adox.de/Media/cms20test.jpg | www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/ here more about the film. Anyway, all in all great video just wanted to point that out.
While it's true that a hq drum scan will outperform most digital sensors, at some point you have to weigh practicality and reality against the absolute limits of the technology. Most people either dont have the resources to get a drum scan or they don't even know drum scanners exist. Even for working professionals who regularly use film, a drum scan isn't part of regular workflow for the majority of their imagery. Rather, it is a one off procedure done for a specific frame for a specific reason. So yes, you're absolutely right. There are ways to squeeze out more information from a frame of film. But, at what point does practicality outweigh squeezing every last drop of resolution out of your images? For most people a drum scan just isn't worth the cost.
Interesting discussion.
Depth of field, tonality, contrast are all lens qualities. Larger capture planes require larger lens which produce these qualities. Depth is Iris size, distance to subject, distance to background, magnification and aperture being the least influential variable. Tonality is how well the lens resolves between any two points of various contrast and contrast is determined by how the circle of confusion is projected onto the image plane. By default people associate these qualities with large sensors, but its misnomer in the sense that bigger with higher resolution require lens that naturally have more of these features. In that sense, this discussion is really about lens, not sensors or image planes.
This is 100% accurate. Saying this as a Phase one XF IQ3 owner. It's got a great look but nowhere nearly as beautiful as a GS690III
It comes down to the hypocrites of it.
Those with small size:"Size dont matter, except those with smaller size"
A 6x4 150mpix digital sensor on a phase 1 camera gets close though ... no?
is there any examples of medium format digital vs FF digital?
It's really simple, if all this babble is needed to peddle MF it's sad. If there really was still a relevant difference today between 61mp FF and MF you would just have to show two images. Most people that are serious about photography have large very high resolution monitors and the difference would be instantly visible if the difference was significant enough. I shot film 6x8cm and 8x10 film and polaroid for decades. I still shoot 6x8cm film, but I am glad I got rid of my MF digital while it was still worth something used. It is irrelevant today. The game changers are two. First is the massive advancement in sensor quality. The Sony 61mp FF sensor is fantastic. The second difference is the total change in lens parameters in FF. The size, weight and cost of FF lenses has totally changed . Now that FF sesnors have reached such high quality and resolution the main camera manufacturers are making larger, heavier and more expensive lenses with exotic glass materials. This has elevated the quality of FF.
Thanks for posting this excellent video, Hans. One thing that you didn’t mention was color, and I am really curious about this (as I teeter on the fence, vis a vis moving to GFX from Canon). When you talk about tonality, and presumably it would be true with color, too, I wonder if we would really see the difference online, between 16 bit and 14 bit color space....? I have heard people talk about it online, but....I guess I really need to see the prints, side by side, with my own eyes. Anyway, I would be curious to hear your take about color (digitally, as opposed to film).
Nice Review Hans, Is Hasselblad 50C(43.8 x 32.9mm) can be called as crop medium format ?
isnt medium format resolution equivilent to 80-100 mega pixels? so isnt that 20 more than the a7r4?
Love this video because in a complete idiot in the photo world and this was highly enjoyable just to hear the details and jargon of the true depth of photography which I missed entirely by buying my first camera only 4 years ago. Subbed
Sails Chong regularly shoots at F11, F16 on Phase One and Hasselblad.
The biggest missing piece is dynamic range. Even with those sensors being 645 they only have about 13-15 stops of dynamic range.
They've gotten the resolution but haven't gotten the Dynamic range. MF film can hit nearly 300mp but Hasselblad has gone passed that with a 400mp sensor and PhaseOne taps out at 151mp 645. 4x5 just so damn big and heavy, not many gonna bother with it. Film has a richness to color that digital doesn't have b/c you need stacked sensor's to even begin talking about color.
The old phoveon sensor's had 3 stacked sensors and the colors are just beyond what film can do imo. Now we're entering an era where stacked sensors are going to become a thing. Otherwise Bayer interpolation won't cut it. CCD came closer than CMOS. Can't wait to get out of this CMOS era.
The closest digital camera to film I think, is the Arri Alexa LF and 35 and those are small sensor's.
There is no way I would ever call a Fuji GFX a medium format camera. That's just marketing. If we're talking digital medium format, it's either the Hasselblad H6D100C or the Phase One Q4 150
I think what people keep getting confused about the "look" of medium and large format is not exactly the difference in DOF, but its the level of compression. for example if youre using a 6x7 105mm, if has the dof of a 105mm, but the compression of a 50, which has a drastically different look which is why you cant compensate on a 35mm with a 50mm at f/.95.
Isn't it the other way round? With a 105 on MF you get an angle of view equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 135 camera but the compression stays that of a 105 lens.
@@alexander.starbuck no. Look up pictures with medium format camera for examples. Compression is determined by the distance from subject, therefore the wider angle equivalent in medium format will have less compression. You can look at the work of Lewis Hine. He used a 4x5 camera but the principles still apply.
Yuu forgot to mention noise and grain which gives it that clarity which i think is what u mean by tonality!
Thank you I have been trying to explain this before to people and some how they don't get it. I wanted a digital Medium format until I found out the sensor is just not as big sooooo there isnt going to be that big of a difference.
Nice video. At 8 x10 print size I couldn’t see a (dramatic) difference between medium format and 35mm film prints. However, particularly with high resolution scans, I notice everything you mentioned. For me personally, the biggest two improvements I can notice are the more flattering FOV at the same mm (hope I’m saying that right) and the “tones” with black and white.
4x5 and 8x10 film in black and white have amazing “tonality.” Makes me want to shoot large format.
Also, great shots as usual.
Besides that the crop factors numbers all are wrong, the video is good and a perfect explanation of the systems and digital vs film also. But there are some digital backs actually with a “real” medium format sensor.
I shoot a lot of gfx also, and I decided to buy a 645 (film) and a 67 to get back that amazing look. Its funny because film now is getting hyped again, and it’s becoming a standard also.
I keep hearing people talking about how medium format has a "smoother tonality" (like you do here at 3:45). Maximum tonality can never be greater than the number of pixels on a sensor. No pixel can capture more than one "tone". Therefore, how is a medium format sensor capturing more "tones" than a full frame sensor using an equal number of pixels?
It's because of the pixel pitch and medium format uses 16bit/14bit. Just compare that to the generic aps-c sensor.
Or try something like the foveon sensors.
As Gavin said, it's to do with bit depth. FF sensors record in 14 bit, whereas medium format sensors can record in 16 bit. 16 bit can display a lot more colours, so the transition, say for example, from blue to yellow, will be smoother. Normally, that wouldn't really be detectable, but if you really push the image in post to extremes, then you could notice it.
@@robiulahmed I know the difference between 14 and 16 bit. However, the transition cannot be "smoother" and greater than the number of pixels.
@@randytesch7664 it can, though. Suppose, you get the colour transition from a small section of sky in the picture. Suppose, it only takes up 5% of the image. The 16 bit file will have a smoother transition.
@@robiulahmed I didn't want to argue with you, I am only a theoretical physicist. This is my website after over 50 years as a very serious photographer.
rstesch.smugmug.com/Portraits/Study/
Not sure I understand the tonality argument. If you have a 60MP full frame vs a 50MP medium format sensor, how can the medium format have better tonality? Clearly the full frame sensor has more pixels to spread the tones across. I can buy the argument that a medium format sensor would have a better dynamic range per pixel though, due to larger pixel size and how they are designed.
I read the medium format look well described thus: the field of view of a wide angle lens, combined with the compression of a telephoto.
This is what no one talks about. Most of the time I hear about depth of field and resolution, but the aforementioned compression is the game changer for me.
There's a lot of conflicting information about this floating around. "Compression" is purely related to field of view, i.e. a 100mm lens on a full frame camera and a 300mm lens on a 4x5 camera will have identical perspective compression. Likewise, cropping the field of view of a 24mm lens on a full frame camera to the equivalent field of view of an 85mm lens on the same camera (with the camera in the same place) will give you exactly identical compression - you will only lose resolution. "Compression" is not a property of the focal length, it is a property of perspective and field of view. Just imagine the image circle at the back of a medium format camera projecting onto a piece of 6x7 film. Now imagine you swap that sheet of film in the back of that camera out for one that is 35mm size - nothing has changed but the crop/field of view. Same compression, same image, same depth of field, you've simply chopped off the sides, top and bottom.
The most important factor is the difference in compression of different focal lengths to get the same field of view. This is also the hardest subject to explain to beginners. You can't have the same look of 50mm on FF with 32mm APS-C, even though the field of view is the same.
Exactly. This is exactly what people skip over when they try to “disprove” the full-frame look. It’s disingenuous to pretend the formats don’t look different.
I agree with you here. Except for that PhaseOne does make a 645 digital which is FX to 645 film. I believe that Hasselblad does as well. Good video. I love the Mamiya RZ67.
Thanks for the straightforward simple explanation of this topic. Excellent video!
I just have one question. Which looks better on paper not on a digital device. Film or digital. In my opinion digital will blow film out the frame on a digital device. On paper digital sucks.
I'd say film just looks nicer than digital regardless of whether it's on a digital device or on paper. However, with enough post processing, digital could look just as good, but with higher resolution. Personally, if you want the film look, it's better to shoot film.
I agree with your opinion, but your size comparison data can be manipulated to serve a narrative. You put APS-C to FF is 2.3x, FF to GFX 1.7x. But the 1x base in this comparison is not the same. It's like saying from 20 yr old to 40 yr old it's 2x, and from 40 yr old to 80 yr old is also 2x, therefore, the age gain is the same. But in real life, you would say age 20 is 0.5x of 40, and age 60 is 1.5x of 40, hence age 20 to 40 is the same age gain as 40 to 60, which is 0.5x of 40.
For your comparison chart, it should be APS-C (nikon) is 0.43x of FF. GFX is 1.67x of FF, 645 is 2.69x of FF, and 67 is 4.54x of FF, based on the image area definition from wikipedia on each format.
Great, thanks for your description of the differences.
Phase One cameras have much bigger digital sensors, some hasselblads too
Apsc->full frame is 1.5x or 1.6x if we’re talking Sony
That's the crop factor, not the sensor size.
Medium format film is just better and that's why so many people are running towards it. It's a more affordable way of getting really stunning images (say shoot 10 6x7 images per 2 weeks) than a phase one system. The separation (not shallow dof) is better on medium format because a longer lens will render wider images than what a 35mm sensor will do.
Missing that it’s the size of the pixels. You can shove more small pixels into the smaller space and call it the same megapixels.
But it isn’t the same is it.
GFX has better tones because of a larger sensor and larger pixels. has better dynamic range.
It’s better period.
Larger than full frame is the tag line. That is the look..
You can draw many similarities across formats for similar looks because mostly the lenses remind you of another brand or format look.
But as far as tonality it is pixel size and dynamic range.
As a GFX50S owner it kinda hurts to hear this 😭😭 however I do own a Pentax 67 also i it's true, the look is a bit different. I will say however that the difference isn't night and day to me.
I'm able to get better tonality with my point and shoot by photographing in low contrast lighting.
I'm 100% pro-film for medium format, I'm a RZ67 II shooter, but you forgot the phase one sensors that actually shoot a 645 sensor size. They're incredibly expensive, prohibitively so, but they are 645 and do give a lot in terms of resolution, tonality, and depth of field (just like the mamiya 645's the platforms based on). The new Fuji's offer that greater color depth, which is fantastic, but the phase one's are in another league.
Very true. The IQ4 and Hasselblad H6D are close to true 645 and are amazing. For us mere mortals, though, the crop medium format sensors will have to do!
Hans Rosemond 100%, they’re insanely high priced. For commercial work though they’re certainly rentable though if a clients understands the gains. Great video either way, man. Love to see the Medium Format love.
@@HansRosemond Still shooting with a Crop MF (Hasselblad H3D) and the images are amazing even for 2019.
You’re clearly ignoring the Hasselblads and phaseones which have almost exactly a 645 size sensor, obviously if you just look at the budget medium format cameras you’ll obviously be disappointed when comparing it to medium format film
I love my GFX100, the look of the Pics, the resolution and the filmsimulations.
At no point in this video did you explain what the medium format look was...you called it a "je ne c'est quoi". Meaning you don't know what it is. Which means you're full of it.
I appreciate that in the film world. there is an obvious advantage to larger, developable surface area, you can't argue with the physics. But in digital photography, there is no medium format look. It's physics. Your "look" is defined by the interpretation of voltages across microscopic dots on the sensor, which is a function of the light flux at each diode. This can be compensated for, regardless of the sensor, whether it be APS-C, FF, or M4/3, and even Medium.
If you can do a video actually explaining what you mean by tonality in the digital format, that would be appreciated. As it is, you waved your hands, said tonality a whole bunch, never differentiated explicitly between film and digital, and just said "so obviously, therefore, there is a Medium format look". Physics strongly disagrees with you on this one.
There is just something artificial about digital... Film just simply looks more natural.. and that’s all the resolution I need.
Totally, i love photography but the more i live a realise that been natural is what make me happy and i find film more natural. There is a lot of "waste" of time in digital sometimes making a bad picture trying to be good.
And what is natural about the emulsion used in film? I do not get your point..!
I love shooting film but I think there is nothing "natural" about photography. In my opinion, "natural" is looking with your eyes; everything else is artificial one way or another.
@@kachimozie4636 Ditto that
Maybe “organic” is a better term in this regard?
Curious why aspect ratio of the original image does not come into your definition of "Look". . . . clearly framing of the original image influences the end result. One can argue that any image can be cropped to any aspect ratio BUT then you are beginning to eliminate the other aspect of the "medium format look" you DID include - resolution.
Tonality doesn't seem to be something technical that can separate MF from FF...
A 100mm plus panorama makes a good 6x6 to 6x9 and more
Love this, "Fight me....don't fight me. I'm not a fighter." 😅
You’re good at this.
thansk for the video. now I want to buy a MF film camera haha. I would like know if shooting video with a medium format lense on my GH5 + metabones speedbooster 0.64x will make my footage look different
Minolta Autocord TLR, my favourite camera. It is a magnate to people, if you do street portraits....don't hesitate to get one.
I shoot both digital medium format and good old film, 67. Whilst not as pronounced on digital due to the relatively small sensor, optical compression is still better than full frame. A 50mm lens on full frame has the same optical distortion characteristics as a 50mm on my 67, however the field of view is roughly that of a 24mm. I guess depth of field and optical compression are two sides of the same coin but that is why I still shoot film. I cannot get that 67 look digitally.
Great video. Loved it. I concur with everything you said. I would like to add that there are “full frame” digital sensors, like the Phase Ones. I own one of them, it´s a real 6x4,5 and you can notice de difference. Personal opinion here: sensors smaller than 6x4,5 are not medium format. They are great, but more marketing than real.
Because there is not much difference in those Super Full Frame sensors (for example: fuji gfx, hassel's X system). It's just got bigger to contain more pixel to make more resolution. If design of sensor is same as FF, APS-C, MFT what could be different?
Only thing they truly offer beyond current FF cameras is that they can take 100mp picture in single shot.
The compression? depends on the distance, not by the lens, nor the size of sensor. Color and tonality? so easy to manipulate in these days. And most people think these are the differences between the sensors.
I think Phase one insists to use the big sized sensor for a reason. if smaller real estate can perform the same as larger sensor(P65+, IQ4). they would be the first company that has done it.
I agree with your opinion. Those tiny medium formats should be called Super full frame or Micro 645.
I am glad that you mentioned GFX and the real deal film medium format. You forgot the Hasselbald H6 and Phase One. which are close to Film Medium Format.
The GFX is bloated Fullframe for me.
Thank you for the video. You mentioned tonality, how does the size of the film effect tonality on the negative?
Missing a big point on depth of field in medium format. A MF 65mm 5.6 lens can get shallow DoF at far greater lens-to-subject distances than a 35mm equivalent focal length of 28mm regardless of how fast that 28mm lens is. The MF look is a wide angle photo with a person shown head to toe, 2 meters from the lens with super shallow DoF. Just is not possible with a 28mm lens on 35mm camera in which a photo of a full human at 2 meters from the lens would be virtually focused at infinity and offer null DoF.
In my experience, having shot with a 65mm lens on 6x7, that just isnt the case. Plug in the numbers at www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html DOF is significantly more shallow for a 35mm camera shooting at 1.4 at 28mm than a 65mm on 6x7 at 5.6.
You're a smart guy. I hope you have more videos like this. Subbed.
What about the infamous subtler transition from in-focus to out of focus areas in medium format? Considering equivalent apertures at the same angle of view. Is there any truth to that?
Science says no. Maybe it's all in our heads!
No comparison whatsoever between 35 mm film and medium format film.
Medium format reins supreme. And of course, large format is far better still -
FF vs Phase One has 2.5 times difference which is big enough. Also you sound like you haven’t used GFX100 because the tonality and dynamic range is much much better than FF cameras.
Yes, I said I haven't used a GFX 100 and would love to try one out in the video.
Hans Rosemond Yes you should try because after you try it , you will see GFX100 has better sharpness than your 6*7 and the dynamic range is almost good as your 6*7 camera.
@@GKhanKutar Yes, as I've said many times, digital medium format is technically better than film in sharpness and clarity. That was never in question, at least by me.
Hans Rosemond 16bit Files are amazing from GFX and Phase One. You should try GFX100 with 110mm F2 lens.
I will still take medium format film over 35 mm digital no matter what the megapixels it has.
Perfect, lucky I found your channel.
You need a pop screen on your mic.
Well, also, like you were saying (but also kind of skipped over) a 50mm lens on FF35 has the same fov as 100mm on medium format... and obviously 50mm and 100mm lenses look different in the way they bend light. To sum up the full-frame or medium format look would be “deep, yet wide”
APSC - full frame isnt 1.5 size difference??
and more like micro 4/3rds are 2x to a full frame?
sorry im a little confused on this part.
1.5x and 2x are crop factors. I'm talking about surface area.
@@HansRosemond i see thank you very much :)
With a 6x7 film camera the look is real, digital MF, not so much. Not worth it for me. I sold the GFX I had and lost money on it. The only regret was buying it in the first place.
This was some good information.
i completely agree...
Great Video, thank you!
Print 60x70cm pictures of MF and 35mm and then get back to me.
If the medium format look is a hoax then there are a lot of professional and amateur’s who been spending Millions of dollars for that look that you are asking or saying is a ‘HOAX’.
This