File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
are digital medium format considered dslr or no?
>> Anonymous
>>281948
digital: yes
single lens: yes
reflex (mirror): yes
>> SAGE
but can it shoot movies?
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
Yes

but why would you refer to it as a DSLR when you can say "digital medium format", everyone knows it makes your penis bigger
>> Anonymous
How much is one of these nowadays?
>> Anonymous
>>281965
Google break or something?
>> Anonymous
>>281966
Can't, too busy keeping track of /p/.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
...want...

will ... make ... make ... parents ... disappear .. for .. their ... fortune.....
>> Anonymous
>>281965
ZD is just under $10,000 body, back and 80mm lens
>> Anonymous
there was a cute girl in the neighboring light studio with one of these (i think) and a normal dslr as a secondary, it was love.... or just me being creepy.
>> i - !EoFJjFcCco
OMG 22 MEGAPICKSULZ!
>> Anonymous
>>282094ZD is just under $10,000 body, back and 80mm lens

that's a pretty good price, why is it so "cheap" when hasselblads and phase ones are in the 20000 range
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>282098there was a cute girl in the neighboring light studio with one of these (i think) and a normal dslr as a secondary

orrrrr it was just a full sized body 35mm dslr because the women who operate the ones in OP are not cute and are butch lesbians
>> Anonymous
serious question/no troll

why do those fancy shoots use digital medium format cameras like hasselblads? is it just for the "slightly" higher resolution?

the 1ds has been 21 MP for a while, now the 5d ii and a900 are the same and 24 MP. do digital mf have better color or anything like that? or do they just want to best possible files money can buy
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>282385
Its due to the maximum resolution MF can provide and the DoF etc etc.

I dont mean resolution as in pixels on sensor either.
>> Anonymous
>>282399I dont mean resolution as in pixels on sensor either.

explain pls
>> Anonymous
>>282403
22mpx on MF vs 22mpx on 35mmFF are going to differ in how cleanly they capture an image because of the size of their photodiodes. Even if they're the same amount, bigger photodiodes will be more responsive to nuances in brightness.

TLDR: Higher dynamic range response because the sensor area is larger.
>> Anonymous
so the digital MF cameras do have intrinsically better image quality
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>282412
yes but no.

>>282403
The glass is bigger so you get more photons in, more photons per area on the sensor give a better er, limit, resolution so you can resolve more detail than you can with a 35mm sized lens.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>282416
Like a 5D or D3, but even bigger. It's a really crazy gain in detail and sharpness. Medium format is the tits.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>282423
large format tits
>> Anonymous
>>282422
Okay, good point, but I'd like to correct that.

>yes, but not only that
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>282426
ah, you can translate from crazy to english.

hang around will you :3
>> Anonymous
>>282430
Oh, I do spend plenty of time here, I just considered that you made it sound like what I said had no truth to it. I wanted to clear it up.

Now that I look more closely though, I'm a bit curious about what you're saying...

>The glass is bigger so you get more photons in, more photons per area on the sensor give a better er, limit, resolution so you can resolve more detail than you can with a 35mm sized lens.

>more photons per area, MF vs 35mm

I don't believe you're right. 80mm F2.8 and a 50mm 2.8 lens apply the same amount of light per area, wouldn't they? There -will- be a difference in the lens design, but the most important difference is probably the field of view for each format. An 80mm MF lens must yield a field of view of around 45 degrees, just like a 50mm would for 35mm. The MF lens will arguably allow more light past it, but it's also true that it must cover a larger area. Exposure time will be the same between both lenses in their respective formats.

Say you have 35mm and MF film, you make an equal exposure with both lenses/cameras, each yielding a very similar field of view, but a different image radius. Considering that they have the same film emulsion equipped, the only difference you'll have between the two pictures is that you're taking up a larger area to project the same field of view. Because both mediums have the same emulsion density, and both lenses project the same amount of light per area, the only difference will be that you're dedicating a larger area to a similar angle of view in the case of MF.

Additionally, due to the generally larger back focal lengths, MF lenses require different optical formulas, which might also result in better-performing lenses.

TLDR: MF and 35mm gather the same amount of light at the same aperture, the difference is that MF uses a larger area per angle of view, which yields more detail. It's like comparing two images, one that's shot at 1024x768 and another one at 640x480.
>> Anonymous
>>282484

Concur based on practical experience.

I normally carry/shoot with a Mamiya M645 and a Canon EOS-3. In the past, I've shot the same thing with both cameras to check to see if there were substantial differences between the two relative to exposure, grain, and so forth (of course using the same type of film).

Unfortunately, I don't have anything scanned at the moment that I could show you to illustrate this point.

What I did find is in line with what you're saying. In my case, I shot the same thing approximating the FOV provided by a MF Mamiya 35mm lens with a Canon 24-105 f/4L, using Fuji Provia 400. Exposure times were the same, however scanning the medium format film yielded better enlargements. (In before HURR DURR DURR STATING THE OBVIOUS.)

However, the focal length for the Canon was closer to the lower end (meaning 24mm) of the range versus a straight 35mm to 35mm conversion. B&H lists the conversion equivalency (for the ones I have seen) for medium format lenses on their website.

TL;DR: I agree. RTFM, FOV listed within. Compare and contrast.
>> Anonymous
There is a difference for MF. MF lenses do not have to have as high a resolution as 35mm lenses to get the same detail. Larger formats means less cutting edge technology is needed to squeeze ever more out of the lenses to keep up with the sensors or film. This is why people often mention that moving from something like a 5D (or lesser) to a 1D Mk III will really show up any weakness in your lens line up. A lot of lenses that were around simply did not resolve enough detail to take advantage of the sensor.

If you put a garbage lens and crap film in a MF camera and compare it to the best of the best for 35mm then obviously MF system will not appear to be any better. If you put lenses of the same quality on each then the MF will blow the 35mm away every time in detail.

MF will always have the advantage on detail. It's just physics, you can't avoid it.
>> Anonymous
>>2829731D Mk III

Meant to say 1Ds Mk III....
>> Anonymous
>>282982
Hmm I agree with everything you said, but that one part sounds a bit odd to me. I'd think the 5D is much closer to the 1Ds3 than it is to an APS-C sensor camera. Which difference between the 1Ds3 and the 5D is it that you're pointing at? The amount of photodiodes (pickles)?

Just to throw it in, another thing I heard which might or might not be true is that a 5D in comparison to APS-C cameras makes even crap lenses look moderately good because of the distance between its diodes or their size. I truly cannot remember this anecdote.

Please explain what you said.
>> Anonymous
>>282985

The comparison between the high megapickles crop cameras and the 5D is the same as between the high megapickles 35mm sized cameras and the 5D.

The crop cameras are trying to squeeze the same ore more resolution out of a smaller area, so the lenses have to be great to keep up with that and resolve that kind of detail on crop cameras. With the 5D (or MF) you are asking for the same out of a larger area, so you can get away with the lenses resolving less detail to get the same image.

It's one of the issues and limitations with sensor sizes and why a few of the EF-S lenses from Canon are actually very good glass. They have to be just to work with their higher resolution (and future) crop cameras. The smaller the sensors are and the higher resolution it has, the better the lenses have to be to keep up. You have to hope the lens technology can keep up with the sensor technology.

Use large format and you can get amazing high detail shots from lenses that are practically ancient and would be soft as boobs if you could see the design perform on 35mm now, just because of the large film/sensor area meaning that the lenses don't need to resolve a high amount of detail for a given area.
>> Anonymous
I miss the old days of film where there was no pixel peeping.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>282484
>the difference is that MF uses a larger area per angle of view
Thats what I was trying to say but failed horribly.
>> Anonymous !nzFagDPRLs
>>282988
>soft as boobs

I lold a little.
But seriously, interesting discussion guys. The L lenses Canon designed for EF-S like the 17-40 that still go on full frame must have impressive center performance on something like a 5D, would seriously out resolve it ya?
>> Anonymous
>>282996

The 17-40 isn't designed for EF-S. It's one of the cheaper Canon L lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>282988
Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining your point.

>>282996
It's the other way around for an L (no crop-only L's yet). Being a lens meant for FF, it might look fine on a 5D, 1Ds etc, but once you put it on a crop sensor, you're going to start seeing the little imperfections in the lens design/quality/etc.

>>282993
It's okay, at least it triggered a, hopefully, informative discussion. My favorite kind of gear thread.


Also,
>>282897
>>282973
>>282988
>>282993

...........
...................__
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
BRO FIST for fellow knowledgefags
>> Anonymous
>>283067Being a lens meant for FF, it might look fine on a 400D, 40D etc, but once you put it on a full frame sensor, you're going to start seeing the little imperfections in the lens design/quality/etc.

fixed
>> Anonymous
>>283111
You're wrong. Canon's FF lenses are optimized for creating a better general image across the frame. When used on a crop, its center's imperfections are more noticeable. At least in the case of the 5D vs crops (same amount of photodiodes but more separated and larger). You might be right in the 5D vs 1Ds comparison (same area, but a higher photodiode population).
>> Anonymous
digital 35mm full frame > medium format film
>> Anonymous
>>283124
I guess if you're talking about straight MTF charts. 120 film is like >3x the surface area of 35mm, but the lenses aren't 1/3 the MTF chart. Because they are more like 60-80% of the MTF of 35mm FF lenses, they have more apparent sharpness when comparing similar prints because of the enlargment factor.

tl;dr, who gives a fuck that 35mm lenses are sharper? MF is larger. That's all there is to it. Don't forget to mention that 35mm FF > MF > LF. Don't make misleading arguments.
>> sure is gear thread in here Anonymous
ITT no one who's actually shot a digital medium format camera

inb4 internet research = experience
>> Anonymous
>>283152
Naw, just people who have used MF cameras alongside 35mm, and random people who have crafted lenses, and maybe studied a little nothing about optics.
>> Anonymous
>>283123
Just to add to this, hence the vignetting, pincushion, and other edge distortion when you place shorter focal length lenses onto a crop sensor.

>>283124
I'm sorry, but no. There is a massive difference between the response of full frame 35mm sensors out there to even begin to build a consistent case to the contrary. In fifteen years, when materials and photographic technology has progressed that any idiot off the street eats shoots and leaves with a 27 or 50 MP camera? Maybe you could successfully make that argument then. Not now.


>>283152
Once. Mamiya 645 with digital back. Had hands on for about thirty minutes. Not long enough to get used to it or do anything important, but enough that I momentarily considered divorce and selling the car to get one. Then of course, I'd taking to wandering the Earth and shooting.

Like the Richard Carradine in 'Kung Fu' only...nevermind... stupid idea anyway.

>>282988
I was in Paris about fourteen months ago on vacation and visited the Museum of Modern Photography (or some such thing in French) and saw a rather interesting exhibit of what can be done with good glass on a good large format (LF) camera.

Dude (name escapes me at the moment and one, there is a cat sleeping on my feet that therefore precludes me from getting my notebook, and two I am beat to shit tired and don't feel like wrestling with Google) was photographing celebrity garbage after arranging it on a monochromatic background.

The images were printed as to render the objects photographed as actual size.

Did you know Tom Cruise has very specific needs for t-shirts, underwear, and other such things? I do now, his assistant's shopping directions to a producer were among the trash on display.
>> Anonymous
>>283183
>I'm sorry, but no. There is a massive difference between the response of full frame 35mm sensors out there to even begin to build a consistent case to the contrary. In fifteen years, when materials and photographic technology has progressed that any idiot off the street eats shoots and leaves with a 27 or 50 MP camera? Maybe you could successfully make that argument then. Not now.

Speaking just in terms of resolution, he's right. Digital 36x24 will outresolve medium format film, and has for some time now. There's test on the Internet; you can go look.

DR I don't know.

In terms of other things, it would of course depend on the other stuff being used and one's preferences.
>> Anonymous
>>283183I'm sorry, but no. There is a massive difference between the response of full frame 35mm sensors out there to even begin to build a consistent case to the contrary. In fifteen years, when materials and photographic technology has progressed that any idiot off the street eats shoots and leaves with a 27 or 50 MP camera? Maybe you could successfully make that argument then. Not now.

i'm sorry but you're wrong, faggot

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

>> In the above artcile I make the claim that the 1Ds produces images superior to medium format drum scans. I took a lot of flack for this when the piece first appeared, even though many pros who I have spoken with and who have started working with the camera are also coming to the same conclusion. It therefore gives me a chuckle (and no small satisfaction) to report that the review of the 1Ds in this month's Shutterbug magazine by Jay Abend comes to the same conclusion as I did.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>283380
I like posting 5 year old articles as reference, too.
>> Anonymous
Digital full frame outresolves medium format film. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>283423
I suppose you can pull an equivalent of 30+ megapixels if you take a fine-grain B&W film, carefully process it and scan with a drum scanner - especially with high-contrast images where the grain isn't too noticeable. But that's too many "if"'s for any practical use.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>283422
>I like posting 5 year old articles as reference, too.
Are you attempting to make the argument there that digital's resolution has decreased since 2003?
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>283450
No, the opposite. After searching around for a few minutes I wasn't able to find any more recent results. I personally haven't used MF film or full-frame digital so I can't personally compare the two.

You can't really believe that after 5 years since that article was posted that digital has gotten worse, can you? Rather, it's become better.
>> Anonymous
>>283456

....
>> Anonymous
>There's test on the Internet

Oh wow! It's on THE INTERNET?!?!? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!! IF IT IS ON THE INTERNET IT MUST BE THE ONE AND ONLY ETERNAL TRUTH!!!!! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET! A TEST ON THE INTERNET!
>> Anonymous
>>281948
What do you think about Phase One's medium format cameras?