Cheap/Good value Medium format : The Look

funtagraph

@FlowtographyBerlin Well, if you want to go into physics (btw, why should Schneider lens lead to a different "physics"? Their glass calculations are math, the glass is…) then please do it not without a look to the sensors used to that kind of physics

I don't know of an 80 MP FX sensor, do you?

We chew a lot about distances, perspectives and DoF - let's talk about detail and color depth, too! Powerful colors, contrasty high definition structures - that's what MF is to me. The rest in terms of perspective proportions is optics and as you said, distance.

Ironheart

If you assume final output is a 40" 2MP HDTV, viewed from 40" away you will have a TON more DoF. Also HTDV is a best 8-bit display so detail and color depth are a wash as well. Now, if we are talking prints, or if folks are pixel peeping, different story.

WestEndFoto

@FlowtographyBerlin Well, if you want to go into physics (btw, why should Schneider lens lead to a different "physics"? Their glass calculations are math, the glass is…) then please do it not without a look to the sensors used to that kind of physics

I don't know of an 80 MP FX sensor, do you?

We chew a lot about distances, perspectives and DoF - let's talk about detail and color depth, too! Powerful colors, contrasty high definition structures - that's what MF is to me. The rest in terms of perspective proportions is optics and as you said, distance.

Many (but not all) of these factors boil down to resolution that larger formats deliver more of. We are narrowing down what is really behind a look.

FlowtographyBerlin

@FlowtographyBerlin Well, if you want to go into physics (btw, why should Schneider lens lead to a different "physics"? Their glass calculations are math, the glass is…) then please do it not without a look to the sensors used to that kind of physics

Haha. You know exactly what I mean, don't you? I'm distinguishing between "simple physics", i.e. the DOF function, and physics with LOTS of variables, i.e. designing a lens, which will lead to a specific look of a lens or lens brand. But those are two different things.

And no, an 80 MP sensor, color depth, all that, is surely not something that you will see in a "look".

FlowtographyBerlin

Precisely, I was showing that it doesn't get you where you want to go. You will have changed the perspective distortion. Just read what I wrote, I think it was clear:

To me it wasn't :-) Ok sorry, I got you wrong then.

Ironheart

No worries, I'm glad we're on the same page. I was trying to outline all of the equivalencies I could think of and to help decide what might be part of this "look" we speak of. I think pictures will do more than words, which is why I'm willing to rent a hassy or pentax and have at it. I'm still looking for volunteers... Especially the models :-)

Msmoto

We can discuss all of the theories, but what we all need to do is head out into the field and demonstrate what each of us is talking about. So, maybe this is a project....easily done with a camera and lens, some post processing required...LOL

sevencrossing

. A 50mm lens looks "weirder" on an FX than an 80 does on an MF,

?????????
both are "standard" or "normal" lenses for their respective formats. In order to get the same fov*, the photographer will be the same distance from the subject and the perspective ( or distortion) identical

* as Fx format is 2:3 and MF 1:1 there may be a small difference

sevencrossing

PitchBlackYes about 40 years years ago
Not only with , full frame, and MF but also large format.

That was in the days of film. Maybe the digital age has changed people's perspective

snakebunk

@PitchBlack: If you are on the same distance the perspective will stay the same. You need a longer lense on an MF camera in order to spread out the image on the larger sensor (compared to DX or FX). But it won't change the perspective. Think about a persons ear that you just don't see. The only way to see it is to step back and hence change the perspective. No matter the size of the sensor or the length of the lense can you look around a head. I haven't been taking photographs for very many years but I feel I understand now that perspective is only related to distance. Thanks to this thread. Do you agree?

Edit: You have to imagine a person with ears far back on the head

heartyfisher

Edit: You have to imagine a person with ears far back on the head

lol !!

FlowtographyBerlin

@Pitchblack: THAT (the perspective and weirdness thing) I don't believe! Why would that be? It doesn't make sense at all, and I know you know your stuff and you're not one of those "magic" people, but that just sounds exactly like one of those "magic" forum myths.

I haven't ever made a direct A/B comparison of the same shot, but however, I've never experienced anything like that.

If you get the chance, do post pictures to illustrate this (same distance, somewhat same framing). The drawings you made illustrate different distance, not different format.

sevencrossing

I watched Finding Vivian Maier last night
her street photography had I think what I think is the "MF look"
her Rollie images are characterized by a waist level view point and a square format

PitchBlack Please do not underestimate the importance of distance! It's vitally important. When you are shooting people, it's best to be able to stand as close as possible to maintain rapport.

Using a waist level finder, She was able to be face to face with her subjects

It is an amazing film. If are into street photography, a must see

funtagraph

@sevencrossing Some of the Rolleiflex also had the possibility to focus via waist level finder and take the image by framing with a simple frame finder, see:

So, Vivian had a lot of options. She also used Leicas or Contaflexes. Also, I had the impression she was a tall person.

She was also very creative on reflections, those are some of her strongest compositions.

nek4life

I watched Finding Vivian Maier last night
her street photography had I think what I think is the "MF look"
her Rollie images are characterized by a waist level view point and a square format

PitchBlack Please do not underestimate the importance of distance! It's vitally important. When you are shooting people, it's best to be able to stand as close as possible to maintain rapport.

Using a waist level finder, She was able to be face to face with her subjects

It is an amazing film. If are into street photography, a must see

Does anyone make a digital camera with a waist level finder? Always loved using those, but I'm really not looking to get back into film right now. Maybe once I have a house and could build a small darkroom, but doesn't seem likely.

funtagraph

One of the reasons to get a D750 and before a D5100 was the tilting display. On my Mini-MF (Sigma Merill) I have a tilt-/swivel mirror mounted which does the same.

nek4life

One of the reasons to get a D750 and before a D5100 was the tilting display. On my Mini-MF (Sigma Merill) I have a tilt-/swivel mirror mounted which does the same.

Ahh didn't think of that! But it would be badass to have a real waist level finder with a popup hood and some ground glass. I'm sure an LCD is much sharper though.

funtagraph

@nek4life just guessing: You never focussed with a matte screen and a waist level finder? I'd prefer a LCD anytime, just push a button and get a 100% view - no "badass" optical VF will ever perform this trick. No OVF will ever amplify the low light when shooting at night. And for protection against sidelight I use a magnetic loupe I can just snap on. No OVF will ever come close to this precision.

When mirror less cam perform AF on the level of SLRs in terms of speed, no one will prefer an OVF anymore.

Hammie

@nek4life - I have used my D750 with the tilt screen at mid chest level for some candid street shots. I just pretend that I am fiddling with some settings.

I need to get used to it, but I like the tilt screen for this type of shooting.

WestEndFoto

@nek4life just guessing: You never focussed with a matte screen and a waist level finder? I'd prefer a LCD anytime, just push a button and get a 100% view - no "badass" optical VF will ever perform this trick. No OVF will ever amplify the low light when shooting at night. And for protection against sidelight I use a magnetic loupe I can just snap on. No OVF will ever come close to this precision.

When mirror less cam perform AF on the level of SLRs in terms of speed, no one will prefer an OVF anymore.

I don't know about that. Even shooting landscapes, I prefer my OVF on my D800 to Livescreen or the LCD on my Coolpix A (which takes great landscapes with its DX sensor and 28mm FX equivalent lens).

Now give me an integration with a Glass Type device, and I might think again.

Ironheart

One thing that will never go away with EVF/LCD is the lag. It may get very small, almost imperceptible, but for me it will always be there. Nothing will ever beat the latency of the actual photons leaving the subject hitting the retna in my eyes. Try shooting 180mph+ race cars with an OVF vs an EVF and you will know exactly what I mean.
Anyway this is way off topic... We should probably open an EVF vs OVF thread if this is going to continue...

funtagraph

Well, the shutter lag doesn't count, then? There were a couple of reports about the new Sonys or Fujis saying the lag was hard to see. I don't know, have pretty much no experience with real good EVF. And also not with racing cars but I guess, the AF system will also have some troubles to keep on track?

Now, it was the question for "Cheap/Good value MF". Maybe it would be good to know the differences between those two terms - cheap is a chinese Seagull or a russian Kiew (with 3 lenses and accessories 580$) , some Kodak boxes also might be cheap. I was offered a Rolleiflex with 75mm lens and consider 700$ good value in that condition, I saw a Mamiya 645 Pro with 4 lenses (one was tilt shift), lots of goodies at 4000$ and consider that also as good value - if I would want to fool around with 120/220 rolls and a scanner. I don't.

A lot of those 6 × 6 or 6 × 4.5 cameras are good value when we think about the price their owner paid. But today? Dust-collectors?

Photobug

One of the reasons to get a D750 and before a D5100 was the tilting display. On my Mini-MF (Sigma Merill) I have a tilt-/swivel mirror mounted which does the same.

I have discovered that the tilt screen is great for shooting macro shots on a tripod. I can frame much easier at lower angles and the AF focusing is fine. That is based upon shooting over 500 macro shots over the past 2 weeks.