Is FF the new Medium Format?

[leadweight]

Every now and then there will be a comment that IQ of the 1DsIII is of medium format quality. Somewhere else I have seen the statistic that the worldwide digital MF market is only 10,000 units per year. Other discussions indicate FF will level off at 50 to 60 MP and crop at 20 to 25 MP. Considering how fast the megapixel inflation is going it might only be 2 years before we see 20 MP on a crop camera.

If FF is the new medium format, then crop must be the new 135. FF may always have better IQ than crop, but not everyone prints large enough for it to matter. There is a one stop advantage in ISO, but both formats keep getting better, so even if there is a spread it will reach a point where few will care. FF has more options in the wide angle and super wide area, but things keep improving for crop cameras so that 16 mm 135 equivalent FOV could easily be 14 mm in a year or two. FF has less depth of field, but that cuts both ways.

Ultra high resolution sensors on FF cameras will require new lenses that will not be cheap or compact. Generally, crop cameras allow for lighter, less expensive and smaller lenses. Compare a Nikon 80-400 to Canon's 55-250 for a case in point. Pro's might not care about this, but amatures do. There are also economic incentives for camera companies to develop separate lines of crop image circle lenses. Even though a 40D is only slightly smaller than a 5D, crop sensors allow for the manufacture of small light bodies like the 450D.

Anyway, I think that FF will never be cheap, following in the footsteps of MF, and crop will be around for a long time with the selection of reduced image circle lenses improving constantly. I won't have to wait that long to see if I am on track when the 5D eplacement is revealed later this month.

[JeffreyG]

Your analogy is sort of correct, and sort of inadequate.

From the standpoint of cost in general, so long as FF bodies command a significantly higher price than 1.6X bodies we will see FF reserved for a sort of 'MF' niche of very dedicated amateurs and professionals. If the prices ever get very close this may end.

On the size/weight front....realistically there is not much to it. The vast majority of the Canon and Nikon lens lines are FF compatible, and there is no reason a FF sensor and mirror box could not be built into a Rebel sized body. Sure, a few offerings like the 18-200 and 55-250 are perfect for the size conscious but the difference isn't as great as MF vs. 135. Canon's 28-200 FF lens wasn't all that big either after all.

Where the analogy really falls apart is handling. The 5D and 40D (50D) are essentially the same cameras with essentially equivalent AF etc. The 1Ds3 is darn near the equal of the 1D3 and better than the 40D. There were never any MF cameras that really handled like the 135 format film stuff.

IMO it is this reason that there is such aingst about format with dSLRs. With film the larger formats didn't just cost more, they were way bigger and much clunkier to use. With dSLRs the only really significant difference with the larger (135) format is cost.

[FlyingPhotog]

I know three photographers who picked up 1DsMkIIIs and then within a month, turned around and sold all their Hassy gear...

Is it the equal? Having never shot with either one, I can't honestly say for sure.
Is it satisfactory? Apprently for the three folks I know...

[DC Fan]

The old medium format isn't gone yet. In the last few weeks, both Hasselblad (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/50-promotion.aspx) and Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P65plus/Introduction.aspx) have announced high resolution medium format digital systems.

[DrPablo]

Medium format is not just about resolution. It's about an optical relationship between the subject and the capture size. So no, in my estimation full frame is the new 35mm.

[leadweight]

@JeffreyG, just because many manufacturers put a crop sensor in a large body it does not mean a FF sensor will fit in a compact body. I would say that is inadequate thinking along the lines of trying to put 2 pounds of organic fertilizer in a one pound bag. A compact FF SLR has not happened yet and will likely never happen.

@DC Fan, old MF might not be gone yet, but a worldwide market of only 10,000 units tells me its almost gone.

[argyle]

MF digital is also very cost-prohibitive for most folks, myself included. When I see the price of these systems (about the price of a decent automobile), the Canon 1DsMkIII becomes that much more affordable. ;) I think I'll keep my Mamiya 645 MF set-up and scan when necessary.

[SkipD]

Medium format is not just about resolution. It's about an optical relationship between the subject and the capture size. So no, in my estimation full frame is the new 35mm.Ditto.

Another subject: "Full-Frame" is a silly term in my opinion. There are so many camera formats - in addition to 35mm film-sized (24mm x 36mm) - and the term does not relate to any one of them.

[argyle]

Ditto.

Another subject: "Full-Frame" is a silly term in my opinion. There are so many camera formats - in addition to 35mm film-sized (24mm x 36mm) - and the term does not relate to any one of them.

Finally, someone said it. "When I go full-frame" is one of the most tiresome things to read. ;)

[JeffreyG]

@JeffreyG, just because many manufacturers put a crop sensor in a large body it does not mean a FF sensor will fit in a compact body. I would say that is inadequate thinking along the lines of trying to put 2 pounds of organic fertilizer in a one pound bag. A compact FF SLR has not happened yet and will likely never happen.

@DC Fan, old MF might not be gone yet, but a worldwide market of only 10,000 units tells me its almost gone.

Canon T2 fits a FF mirror box, pentamirror and roll of film in a body the size of a Rebel dSLR. I fail to see the impossibility of a FF dLSR in a small body like a Rebel.

Film roll on one side becomes a battery. Film winder on the other side becomes the processor and recording media (better go SD).

Why is this impossible?

[DrPablo]

As for digital medium format and digital large format, let's not forget scanners as capture devices. For $2000 I bought a drum scanner that can scan up to 4000 dpi at 12 bits with literally zero noise (because drum scanners don't use CCDs). Newer drum scanners can get higher resolution and bit depth, but it hardly matters because at a true 4000 dpi you're at the level of film grains.

So my Hasselblad, which gives me 5.6x5.6 cm frames, will give me a true 78 megapixel image if I so choose. I also shoot 5x12 cm (the Noblex), 4x5" LF, and 8x10" LF. And if I chose I could get a nearly 1.3 gigapixel image from scanning an 8x10.

There are costs and hassles to film that don't work for some people. On the other hand, rather than spending a bajillion dollars on a view camera with a scanning back or a digital "MF" camera (most of which aren't even 645), I spent $2000 to digitize multiple formats all the way up to LF. Sounds like a better deal to me. I consider myself a digital MF and LF photographer, at least for color (which I always process and print through a digital intermediate).

[leadweight]

Obviously some of you are defining things differently than I am. Also, If you want to find exceptions and make a big deal about it, go ahead, but that proves nothing. Its a pretty regular thing for folks to make a big deal about insignificant exceptions in forums.

Within my definitions crop has replaced 135 in terms of the tasks it does. Full frame (or 24x36mm sensor cameras for those who think a well understood abbreviation is silly) now does most of the work that MF used to do. There are all sorts of exceptions and some continue to shoot film. Large format film can do things that are unique and beautiful. I believe that large format will persevere in a manner similar to tube electronics and vinyl recordings, its that special. But, large format is a different world from what I am talking about.

As far as it being technologically possible to build a small FF digital camera, it might be, but nobody has. It is not likely to ever result in a commercially viable product. This is an example of an exception so narrow that it lacks any relevance to the discussion.

My views are about the broader reality, not wishes or a sense of entitlement that we deserve $1200 full frame 135 digital bodies or paranoia over whether support for EF-S lenses will be withdrawn any time soon.

[JeffreyG]

Obviously some of you are defining things differently than I am. Also, If you want to find exceptions and make a big deal about it, go ahead, but that proves nothing. Its a pretty regular thing for folks to make a big deal about insignificant exceptions in forums.
.

It seems as though you are the one picking nits.

Let's restate the question though and see if this gets better:

With film, MF equipment delivered better IQ than 135 format. People avoided MF and chose to use 135 (sacrificing IQ) because 135 format offered advantages. These were:
1. Cheaper
2. Smaller and more portable
3. Faster handling - think AF and zooms for sports etc.

So now we have 135 format digital and 1.6X digital for the most part. Your question is, will 135 format digital tend to be used by the folks who used to use MF film while 1.6X digital will be the choice of the masses that once selected 135 format film?

So look at the criteria again:

1. Cheaper - this holds today and is why most people use 1.6X

2. Smaller and more portable. My point (which you denigrated) is that the size and weight difference between 135 format and 1.6X digital is minimal, and 135 format can be built into cameras that are just about as small as a Rebel, which is smaller than many people care for.

3. faster handling - No difference. 1Ds? 40D? 5D? Rebel? It's more about features and cost than format obviously.

So....cost is the only real reason FF remains a niche market. I posit that if the cost barrier disappeared mose people would opt for FF because it delivers better IQ. I also suggest that the cost barrier isn't likely to disappear, so this is just a thought exercise.

[DocFrankenstein]

How many hasselblads were produced per year?

FF is not medium format - it's just marketing. When D30 (pre-rebel) came out it was compared to medium format and well as every next camera produced by canon.

Just like they all have been compared to 35mm at some point, which digital still doesn't match in SOME aspects.

But FF definitely brings us closer and certainly gives good quality.

[Wilt]

I side with you, Jeff. The analogy of APSC:FF is similar to 135:medium format

increasing IQ, at higher cost
most folks get along fine with the smaller format, but some enthusiants want the larger format
most pros get along fine with the smaller format; but some need the larger format for their clients
the incremental cost of equipment between 135:medium format was not huge, but tangible; just like APS-C: FF
the incremental cost to next level (digital medium format) is a big jump (only recently approaching mere mortal levels with the Mamiya); just like medium format film camera jump to large format was a big jump


analogies are not perfect, they seldom are; but one should appreciate the magnitude of similarities and not debate the small stuff, because that is missing the point!