Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Medium Format Digital Cameras and Backs
Thread started 20 Aug 2015 (Thursday) 10:25
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Is medium format better than 200mm 2.0 on 35mm format?

 
ZoneV
Goldmember
Joined Dec 2010
Germany
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by ZoneV.
Aug 28, 2015 00:21 |  #16

It seems the 645 is not optimal to get very much blur, at least with native native lenses.

Take a larger format like Pentax 67, this is about crop 0.5.
With the SMC PENTAX 67 400mm f4 ED IF you have the same distance and blur like the Canon EF 200/2.0
With the SMC PENTAX 6X7 800mm f4 you have something like a 400mm/2.0 on EOS full frame.

From my experiments it seems like the Canon FD 400mm/2.8L could have a large enough image circle for Pentax 67. This would be something like a 200mm f/1.4 on Canon full frame.
Probably the FD 300mm/2.8 will work too - that would be equivalent to a 150mm/1.4 on crop 1.

There are some other alternative lenses, many work with larger formats than crop1 = full frame.
For example even the Canon 85mm f/1.2 can used on digital medium format, but I think only for close up:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.ph​p?topic=82361.0 (external link)

Some uses even largeformat. The Kodak Aero Ektar 7inch f/2.5 on 4x5 inch film (crop 0.29) is equivalent to an 52mm f/0.7 on crop1 DSLR.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,172 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Aug 28, 2015 09:10 |  #17

ZoneV wrote in post #17685912 (external link)
It seems the 645 is not optimal to get very much blur, at least with native native lenses.

Take a larger format like Pentax 67, this is about crop 0.5.
With the SMC PENTAX 67 400mm f4 ED IF you have the same distance and blur like the Canon EF 200/2.0.


IF you have $2200-2800 in the lens budget! -- used prices, as this lens is no longer manufactured. With a 0.44 crop factor (55mm frame height) this is the blur comparison with a headshot. Of course, $2800 still beats $4600-5600 for the Canon (amazon.com used prices)

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/Pentax%20blur_zpsqayn9awu.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
Joined Dec 2010
Germany
Aug 28, 2015 13:11 |  #18

Wilt, it seems your calculation is a bit off.
I suppose you took 60x70mm negative format, which is not correct - it is a bit smaller. So you get about 87mm diagonal for the Pentax 67, and ~43mm for the 1x croop DSLR - so the crop factor is 0.5, not 0.44.

As long as one not calculate film cost the Pentax 67 system is quite cheap :-)
And with a converted Canon FD 400mm/2.8L is is unbelivable cheap. A 200mm/1.4 for EOS FF will likely cost 10 times more than an old FD supertele - if Canon would build such a fast EF lens.


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,172 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 6 edits done in total.
Aug 28, 2015 15:22 |  #19

ZoneV wrote in post #17686553 (external link)
Wilt, it seems your calculation is a bit off.
I suppose you took 60x70mm negative format, which is not correct - it is a bit smaller. So you get about 87mm diagonal for the Pentax 67, and ~43mm for the 1x croop DSLR - so the crop factor is 0.5, not 0.44.

As long as one not calculate film cost the Pentax 67 system is quite cheap :-)
And with a converted Canon FD 400mm/2.8L is is unbelivable cheap. A 200mm/1.4 for EOS FF will likely cost 10 times more than an old FD supertele - if Canon would build such a fast EF lens.

The 120 film only supports a frame height of 55-56mm. 24/55 = .44

The Pentax 67 user manual lists actual frame specifications of 55x70mm.,

Yes, I know the 4/3 is stated as commonly as 2x crop, using my criteria I call it 1.85X from the standpoint of FOV (even though its lens FL equivalence is described as 2X). But like 6x7 it is of a different aspect ratio than the overlong 3:2 format of 35mm, and comparing the height of objects in the frame is better consideration of equivalency than the diagonal measure. 6x6 Square format on 120 film would have same crop factor (0.44X) as 6x7 or 6x9 or 6x12 by that criteria.

These would all capture identical vertical FOV at the same shooting distance:

  • 13mm on 4/3 (my crop factor = 24/13)
  • 15mm on APS-C (my crop factor = 24/15)
  • 24mm on FF
  • 42mm on 645 (my crop factor = 24/42)
  • 55mm on 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 pr 6x12 (my crop factor = 24/55)
  • 93mm on 4x5 sheetfilm (my crop factor = 24/93)


...while all capturing different horizontal FOV as their aspect ratios all differ

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
Joined Dec 2010
Germany
Aug 29, 2015 09:11 |  #20

Wilt wrote in post #17686709 (external link)
Yes, I know the 4/3 is stated as commonly as .5 crop.

I would say 4/3 has crop factor 2. Otherwise the Pentax 67 would have 2


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,172 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Aug 29, 2015 13:58 |  #21

ZoneV wrote in post #17687429 (external link)
I would say 4/3 has crop factor 2. Otherwise the Pentax 67 would have 2


Yeah, you caught me in a misspeak! Corrected my earlier post


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Moscow
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Kolor-Pikker. 6 edits done in total.
Sep 03, 2015 05:11 |  #22

Ever since I've switched to the 645Z I've stopped being so hung up on max blur. I even got the 150/2.8 to go with it, and shooting it wide open is very impressive, but going up in format did change my shooting habits to include a lot more stopped down shots. When you pay so much for extra pixels you kind of want them to be in focus. :-)

There are two things that numbers alone can't convey, the first is that you're using different focal lengths and optical formulas for similar shots, which results in the fact that even if the DOF is technically narrow on MF, it doesn't actually look that way due to the gradual focus roll-off. Putting it another way, at 100% zoom you can clearly tell that at 150/2.8 only the subject's eye(s) are in focus, but zooming out to fit the image on the screen it looks a lot more in focus than it really is, even more so than with smaller formats. With the 85L and 135L there was a clear and sharp focus transition that you could spot in a thumbnail. The bigger the film/sensor, the more this plays into effect.

The other factor is that the 150mm 2.8 isn't exactly an "extreme" lens design as something like the fast L primes, which means that it's wide-open performance is significantly higher, except for the 200/2 of course. It still has quite a bit of fringing and isn't amazingly sharp at 2.8, but is still far superior to what the 85/135L manage, especially considering that this camera has over 2x the pixel count. Now that the 5DSR is a thing, it would be interesting to compare the performance of these lenses on a more technical basis, but honestly they weren't perfect even at 21mp. The short of it is that it's a unique combination of sharp in-focus detail and soft out of focus rendering that sets the visual quality apart.

Stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller the 150/2.8 is a friggen razor blade right to the edge of the frame, which makes it a nice dual-purpose tool, as it's softer wide open for portraits and amazingly sharp for everything else. If you can live with manual focus, the "Otus" of the system would be adapting the Zeiss 110mm f/2, which has an impossibly thin DOF while being also super sharp wide open, but good used samples go for over $2200 on eBay. You can get used Pentax lenses for super cheap, my 150mm set me back $700, and even then I think I paid too much, but it was from a friend selling his 645D so I guess I let it slide.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

LOG IN TO REPLY
maxshafiq
Member
maxshafiq's Avatar
82 posts
Joined Jun 2015
Tampa, USA
Nov 05, 2015 17:08 as a reply to post 17685593 |  #23

Love the video...very valid argument :-)




LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
Joined May 2012
Riverside,California
Nov 05, 2015 17:16 |  #24

I use a RB67 and 35mm both film and digital daily and it's miles ahead better for what you want.


Plus it has built in bellows so it has close focusing with any lens.

I alao have a M645 but it never comes out because it can't compete with 6×7, or actually the RB can do 7×7 when using Packfilm.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
ZoneV
Goldmember
Joined Dec 2010
Germany
Nov 09, 2015 00:16 |  #25

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #17685183 (external link)
This is the Mamiya 200/2.8 on Phase One P45+ (1.1 crop sensor)

Better name it here 0.7 crop, cause here most take 43mm image diagonal as reference = 1.

200mm/2.8 on your camera is equivalent to 140mm/2 on 24x36mm sensor
80mm/1.9 is equivalent to 56mm/1.3


DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Go ­ Go
Member
Go Go's Avatar
147 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Jan 28, 2016 12:58 |  #26

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

This is the Leica S 006 with the S100 F/2.0 lens shot open, from last summer.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7,603 views & 10 likes for this thread
Is medium format better than 200mm 2.0 on 35mm format?
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Medium Format Digital Cameras and Backs


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00099 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is smurkej
908 guests, 431 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016