Now that the average high-end FF has as much res as the MF crowd, is there really any need for the larger format?
Sep 16, 2017 21:45:34 #
Does it make much difference at 45-50mp what format you use?
Sep 16, 2017 22:19:33 #
Sep 16, 2017 22:25:01 #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
It's not about megapixels.
Yes, Goofy ... I do realize that ....
But, still ... when you compare PRODUCT side-by-side ... not much diff ....
Sep 16, 2017 22:58:38 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Yes. Resolution, archivability and the major advantage, camera movements.
MF ... camera movements???
Hassy, maybe ...
Not many lesser have such features ....
Sep 16, 2017 22:59:53 #
ChrisT wrote:
MF ... camera movements???
Hassy, maybe ...
Not many lesser have such features ....
Hassy, maybe ...
Not many lesser have such features ....
Misread you topic as large format. There are MF view cameras, however, but they are not common
Sep 16, 2017 23:03:57 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Misread you topic as large format. There are MF view cameras, however, but they are not common
I thought you might have, Dark ...
You are right ... not many of THOSE around ....
Here's the thing - if you looked at Hi-Res pics from a MF DSLR and a FF DSLR - side by side ...
Could YOU tell the difference? ... I'm talking - PRINTS, now ... say - 8x10 ...
Sep 17, 2017 00:17:22 #
ChrisT wrote:
Does it make much difference at 45-50mp what format you use?
Of course there is!!
A MF is to FF, what the FF is to Crop.
Much better DOF, much less noise and low light capability.
For pros that demand the next level, that's it!!!
SS
Sep 17, 2017 00:52:49 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Of course there is!!
A MF is to FF, what the FF is to Crop.
Much better DOF, much less noise and low light capability.
For pros that demand the next level, that's it!!!
SS
A MF is to FF, what the FF is to Crop.
Much better DOF, much less noise and low light capability.
For pros that demand the next level, that's it!!!
SS
Sharp ... I am sure your comment will incite others to find the next level ...
Sep 17, 2017 00:54:29 #
Perhaps, to those struggling, still, with DX ... they will jump right over FF ... straight to MF ... same ball-park ...
Sep 17, 2017 07:36:47 #
ChrisT wrote:
Does it make much difference at 45-50mp what format you use?
Yes
Sep 17, 2017 23:28:33 #
Gene51 wrote:
Yes
Love these curt one or two-word answers from you, Gene ...
Sometimes, though - they can lead to more confusion ...
Sep 17, 2017 23:34:33 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Of course there is!!
A MF is to FF, what the FF is to Crop.
Much better DOF, much less noise and low light capability.
For pros that demand the next level, that's it!!!
SS
A MF is to FF, what the FF is to Crop.
Much better DOF, much less noise and low light capability.
For pros that demand the next level, that's it!!!
SS
Better DOF, I'll give you ... no wavering on that score ...
Much less noise too ... that also is a given ...
But, low light capability? ... Not really sure about that ... you'd be hard-pressed to find a f1.2 lens in the MF crowd.
Neither are you going to find the ISO headroom ... which is so prevalent on so many high-end FF bodies ...
Sep 18, 2017 05:55:05 #
RobbieAB
Loc: UK
ChrisT wrote:
But, low light capability? ... Not really sure about that ... you'd be hard-pressed to find a f1.2 lens in the MF crowd.
The sensor has a better low-light capability than a FF sensor of the same pixel count due to larger sensor sites. If shooting at f1.2 on FF, this will obviously more than off-set the sensor site size benefit. It's also worth noting that f1.2 lens probably gives a narrower depth of field than most MF lenses would.
ChrisT wrote:
Neither are you going to find the ISO headroom ... which is so prevalent on so many high-end FF bodies ...
I think this is questionable: I suspect part of the reason FF bodies have so much more ISO headroom is the FF camera makers are prepared to accept a higher noise image, possibly in a bragging rights marketing game to have the "highest ISO camera". In principle, the MF cameras should have pretty similar high-ISO performance to FF as the sensor tech is pretty much the same.
In technical metrics, most MF options are unlikely to blow away the top end FF cameras. However the continued sales of MF digital cameras would lead me to suspect that MF cameras still offer something that isn't really captured in the raw technical metrics. Obviously, a lot of this will depend on what you are photographing.
Sep 18, 2017 16:59:52 #
RobbieAB wrote:
I think this is questionable: I suspect part of th... (show quote)
Then, Robbie - you're stating using those high ISO numbers attained by the latest crop of high-end FFs as a basis for comparison, is pretty useless, as when you get that high, noise is unacceptable, regardless. So, that's all about marketing, then. Thus, it would be a pretty good idea to ignore those numbers, for all comparisons.
Of course, there's a great loss of DOF when using a f1.2 lens on a FF. But, that's an acceptable sacrifice, in order to be able to use it in extremely low-light situations - which is adequate compensation.
Regardless, you will not be able to get anywhere NEAR f1.2 with a MF lens. So, you are pretty much dependent on bumping up ISO, when required. So, that means - the numbers applicable to that group are very much more important when making comparisons.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.