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?

 
texshooter
Senior Member
604 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Aug 20, 2015 10:25 |  #1

If I were to buy a medium format outfit ( say Pentax 645Z) it would be for its reputed amazing Bokeh and blur for portraits. but how does MF measure up to Canon's 200mm f2.0? I suspect the 200mm on a FF camera is better; hence no need to buy MF? Am I right?




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
raptor3x
Senior Member
raptor3x's Avatar
Joined Aug 2011
Rutland, VT
Aug 20, 2015 11:20 |  #2

texshooter wrote in post #17676314 (external link)
If I were to buy a medium format outfit ( say Pentax 645Z) it would be for its reputed amazing Bokeh and blur for portraits. but how does MF measure up to Canon's 200mm f2.0? I suspect the 200mm on a FF camera is better; hence no need to buy MF? Am I right?

I don't think you'll find anything better than the 200 f/2 for blurring out backgrounds, I'm not even sure if you'll find something equivalent to match it. The main reasons to switch to MF, however, would be improved tonality, resolution, and dynamic range. If you're just focused on shallow DoF effects then you'll probably be happiest with 35mm format.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1, E-M1ii, Pen-F Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 17 1.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, µ.Z 300 4.0

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX.
Aug 20, 2015 11:28 |  #3

texshooter wrote in post #17676314 (external link)
If I were to buy a medium format outfit ( say Pentax 645Z) it would be for its reputed amazing Bokeh and blur for portraits. but how does MF measure up to Canon's 200mm f2.0? I suspect the 200mm on a FF camera is better; hence no need to buy MF? Am I right?

Heya,

Look at some of these portraits and the focal length, aperture and relative distance to subject.

Link (external link). (Scroll through the whole thing and look at the differing portraits)

Large sensor formats have a whole other look that long fast telephotos cannot do on their own. There's more to it than just trying to smash a background.

I'd take a 180mm F2.8 medium format portrait at close range over a 200F2 35mm format photo.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,699 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 20, 2015 16:19 |  #4

texshooter wrote in post #17676314 (external link)
If I were to buy a medium format outfit ( say Pentax 645Z) it would be for its reputed amazing Bokeh and blur for portraits. but how does MF measure up to Canon's 200mm f2.0? I suspect the 200mm on a FF camera is better; hence no need to buy MF? Am I right?

maybe maybe not. Bokeh wise, hard to top a 200/2, even with MF. Reason is that the largest of the medium format is 2.5 larger than FF, and MF lens selection is quite limited. Being only 2.5x larger AND not offering many lenses faster than 2.8, makes the differences smaller in bokeh, however, that tonal gradation and dynamic range would likely BLOWOUT the full frame camera.

Focal length range with MF is a bit limiting as well.

btw, a 180 F2.8 on Phase 1 would be like an 85mm F1.0 on 35mm. I'm sure the resolution on MF would be off the charts.


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
texshooter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
604 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Aug 20, 2015 16:43 |  #5

Charlie wrote in post #17676749 (external link)
btw, a 180 F2.8 on Phase 1 would be like an 85mm F1.0 on 35mm. I'm sure the resolution on MF would be off the charts.

I don't think Phase One's crop factor is 0.47 (85mm / 180mm). I think it's closer to 0.70, which would make the 180mm F2.8 lens equivalent to 121mm F2.0. Canon's 135mm F2.0 can do better than that.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,699 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Aug 20, 2015 16:57 |  #6

texshooter wrote in post #17676778 (external link)
I don't think Phase One's crop factor is 0.47 (85mm / 180mm). I think it's closer to 0.70, which would make the 180mm F2.8 lens equivalent to 121mm F2.0. Canon's 135mm F2.0 can do better than that.

phase 1 sports a 54x40mm sensor
pentax, 44x33mm?
35mm, 35x23mm? I do recall a 28mm on phase 1 gives a FOV of 17mm, so your right not being a 0.47 factor, but 0.6 factor, so 100 F1.8? something to that effect. MF wont give you that compressed look like a 200/2, so it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. IMO, 85/100FOV is a far cry from 200mm, just trying to make the point that the bokeh between the two will be fairly small. Missing focal lengths, color rendition, dynamic range, resolution will be much bigger factors. I think the longest lens on MF gives you a 150mm FOV, which is really good for portraits. Large dramatic posters, that's what medium format is for.


Sony A7rii x2 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4 - Tamron 28-75 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 VC

LOG IN TO REPLY
texshooter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
604 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Aug 20, 2015 17:36 as a reply to Charlie's post |  #7

Here's how I see it. If I were to buy into medium format, it would be the Pentax 645Z for budget reasons. So let's see how the 645Z stacks up with 35mm FF when it comes to DOF/FOV.

To deliver similar results to Canon's three best portrait lenses, Pentax would need to offer the following lenses (based on its 0.79 crop factor):

Canon 85mm F1.2 = Pentax 108 F1.5
Canon 135mm F2.0 = Pentax 171 F2.5
Canon 200mm F2.0 = Pentax 253 F2.5

The only Pentax lens that B&H sells for the 645 lens mount that barely begins to approximate these equivalencies, is their 150mm F2.8. Conclusion: There are no Pentax lenses that can match Canon's. Medium format's other virtues such as resolution, dynamic range, et, all take a back seat to blur/FOV/bokeh as far as I'm concerned. So I'll stick with the 35mm format for now.

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



LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 4 edits done in total.
Aug 20, 2015 18:00 |  #8

You have much more to consider than merely FL! For example, you have to also consider equivalent FOV. If you used 200mm on a camera with 24mm frame height, then you have to use a 356mm lens on a camera with 43mm frame height (645 format). Assuming you could find that FL, it would likely be an f/5.6 lens at best! Comparing the amount of blur behind the subject at various distances (and assuming we are shooting at a distance (56m) which captures a FOV of 10m (at the plane of the subject), we have this graph of the amount of blur...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/200mm%20f2_zps2orduira.jpg

the graph shows that f/5.6 aperture on MF cannot compete with f/2 on 200mm. It would take a 356mm lens with f/3.5 max aperture to equal it!

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
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,527 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Aug 22, 2015 13:07 |  #9

Does anyone have any concern with how far from the subject that 24x36mm framed camera with the 200mm would be to achieve that same blur with the same field of view as the medium format camera?




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited over 2 years ago by Wilt. 4 edits done in total.
Aug 23, 2015 00:07 |  #10

RDKirk wrote in post #17678755 (external link)
Does anyone have any concern with how far from the subject that 24x36mm framed camera with the 200mm would be to achieve that same blur with the same field of view as the medium format camera?

My original graph showed a portrait head shot, about 1 meter tall area... about 5m shooting distance.

And 200mm f/ 2 on FF has shallower area 'in focus' than 356mm f/5.6 on 645


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
P51Mstg
Goldmember
P51Mstg's Avatar
1,336 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Mt. Carmel, TN
Aug 25, 2015 15:43 |  #11

I've got a 200mm 1.8 which I think is better than 200 2.0...... Still... If you want a GREAT picture, MF is better than 35mm hands down. They dynamic range is simply awesome...

Mark H


Too Much Camera Stuff......

LOG IN TO REPLY
texshooter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
604 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Aug 25, 2015 16:31 |  #12

P51Mstg wrote in post #17682715 (external link)
I've got a 200mm 1.8 which I think is better than 200 2.0...... Still... If you want a GREAT picture, MF is better than 35mm hands down. They dynamic range is simply awesome...

Mark H


I doubt it. The previously posted charts show that full frame lenses offers more background blur than medium format. Plus, DXOMark.com shows that Phase One's dynamic range trails behind the Nikon D810.

So the data suggests otherwise.

http://www.dxomark.com ...tions=false&viewMod​e=list (external link)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by Wilt.
Aug 25, 2015 20:35 |  #13

texshooter wrote in post #17682790 (external link)
I doubt it. The previously posted charts show that full frame lenses offers more background blur than medium format. Plus, DXOMark.com shows that Phase One's dynamic range trails behind the Nikon D810.

So the data suggests otherwise.

http://www.dxomark.com ...tions=false&viewMod​e=list (external link)

It would take a 356mm f/3.6 on 645 to EQUAL the near field and far field blurriness of 200mm f/2 on FF


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
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
chris_holtmeier's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Omaha
Aug 27, 2015 13:21 |  #14

This is the Mamiya 200/2.8 on Phase One P45+ (1.1 crop sensor)

IMAGE: http://www.foton-foto.com/photos/i-M4PD3dS/0/X2/i-M4PD3dS-X2.jpg


This is the 80/1.9 on the same camera:

IMAGE: http://www.foton-foto.com/photos/i-Z6hvg7J/0/L/i-Z6hvg7J-L.jpg


https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,527 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by RDKirk.
Aug 27, 2015 19:02 |  #15

Everyone is so "focused" on gaining the maximum amount of blur (and "blur" is not the same thing as "bokeh") that they overlook things like the effect of distance on perspective even within the distance of facial features.

A face photographed at 20 feet does not look like the same face photographed at 10 feet, it is less attractive. The difference is subtle but subconsciously effective. Nor is more blur always better, and learning how to use background well is more important than simply obliterating it.

A good video for some "perspective:"

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY (external link)




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

7,547 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 0.00152 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is aKilter
781 guests, 294 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016