Besides height and width dimensions, what differences are there between images produced with a full-frame camera and a medium-format camera if both cameras have a 50 megapixel sensor?
The article was regarding full frame vs. crop sensor.
The question was about full frame vs. medium format.
Does one extrapolate and consider a full frame a crop sensor compared to a medium format sensor?
Jack56 wrote:
Besides height and width dimensions, what differences are there between images produced with a full-frame camera and a medium-format camera if both cameras have a 50 megapixel sensor?
Further assuming similar sensor tech, the larger sensor will have a noise low/light advantage. It will also likely have a slight DR advantage -- more dynamic range capacity. And there's the DOF difference; advantage or not depending on what your shooting. Taking the same photo (same perspective and same framing) at the same f/stop the smaller sensor will have deeper DOF.
Price is another big difference, maybe more than any other difference.
Medium format sensors are larger than full frame sensors. So even if they have the same 50MP, the medium format pixels will be larger. The lenses are made to cover the sensor so they have to be larger. Medium format sensors have a .70x crop factor compared to full frame, so a 50mm lens on a medium format camera would have the equivalent area of coverage as a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. I believe the depth of field on a medium format camera will also be shallower than using the same f stop on a full frame camera.
Good question. The physical size of the pixel may govern the difference between the two formats. I await the expert opinions.
Jack56 wrote:
Besides height and width dimensions, what differences are there between images produced with a full-frame camera and a medium-format camera if both cameras have a 50 megapixel sensor?
The question, as I understand it was, the full size sensor (around 24x36 mm) or a medium size sensor (around 645 mm). Am I wrong?
Paul J. Svetlik wrote:
The question, as I understand it was, the full size sensor (around 24x36 mm) or a medium size sensor (around 645 mm). Am I wrong?
The medium format sensor is smaller than the frame size using film which would usually be 60 x 45mm. The medium format sensor is 43.8 x 32.8mm. The medium format sensor is about 1.43x the size of the full frame sensor. Close to the difference between a nikon crop sensor and a nikon full frame sensor, which is 1.5x larger.
One mentioned cost as the biggest issue today. THAT is partially true.
Another issue, more important (in my opinion), is the lenses needed. These lenses of course are more expensive and limited in choice.
As to the term 'full frame' sorry but ALL cameras, even cell phones are 'full frame'.
Different sensor size leads to difference size of the 'sensels', not pixels. The larger the sensel the more light is analysed to create a pixel, theoretically producing a more accurate pixel shade and color descriptor.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Price is another big difference, maybe more than any other difference.
I agree with CHG_CANON. You may be astounded by camera and lens prices for medium format digital.
Consider your end product. If you want to produce huge poster-size prints for wall art, medium format may be what you need. Especially if you will be looking at the photo from a very close distance.
But for anything else it is hard to imagine that, for example, a FF 40 megapixel sensor would not do the job at a much lower cost. Even this may also be overkill for most tasks.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Jack56 wrote:
Besides height and width dimensions, what differences are there between images produced with a full-frame camera and a medium-format camera if both cameras have a 50 megapixel sensor?
When it comes to sensor size, bigger is better. Big blanket statement, but ever since my first digital in 2000, this generalization has proven true. They closest to your ask was when I considered a 12 mp D700 to use alongside my 12 mp D300S. Simply put, there was no comparison. The larger sensor was better in every way.
To cover the same field of view and f stop, the bigger the sensor the bigger, heavier, and more expensive the lenses and cameras are. I'd take a medium format kit if it were free though.
RGG-Test-account wrote:
One mentioned cost as the biggest issue today. THAT is partially true.
Another issue, more important (in my opinion), is the lenses needed. These lenses of course are more expensive and limited in choice.
As to the term 'full frame' sorry but ALL cameras, even cell phones are 'full frame'.
Different sensor size leads to difference size of the 'sensels', not pixels. The larger the sensel the more light is analysed to create a pixel, theoretically producing a more accurate pixel shade and color descriptor.
One mentioned cost as the biggest issue today. TH... (
show quote)
No, that isn't true. "Full frame" in digital refers to the 35mm format in film cameras. There isn't anything magic about it, it just means that digital has finally caught up with film as far as sensor size compared to a 35mm piece of film.
Medium format means the sensor size is larger than a piece of 35mm film, however many MP it carries. Medium format film has a look to it that blows 35mm away.
I can't speak to the look of medium format digital but IF I could afford it I would be happy too. Assuming it is similar to the difference between 35mm and medium format film.
That's my view of the whole thing.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.