Medium Format vs. DSLR

Radtech1 wrote in post #10587426
For what it's worth, here is Luminous Landscape's comparison of the Canon G10 against a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P45+ back.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​kidding.shtml

Rad

So their take is that when comparing shots of boring scenes with no clear point of focus, it doesn't matter how good your equipment is? I think we all have that one figured out...

Radtech1 wrote in post #10587426
For what it's worth, here is Luminous Landscape's comparison of the Canon G10 against a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P45+ back.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​kidding.shtml

Rad

Interesting. He certainly covered all areas for sure. I guess DMF will get cheaper and affordable down the road. It's happening now with the Pentax 645D with 40 MP.

jdizzle wrote in post #10586539
I would love to know your thoughts on the subject. Thanks and enjoy the read.

Interesting read and amazing amount of BS from PhaseOne's marketing. It is cleverly written, though, no doubt plenty people will believe everything they read in there.

krb wrote in post #10587492
So their take is that when comparing shots of boring scenes with no clear point of focus, it doesn't matter how good your equipment is? I think we all have that one figured out...

For sure!

voka_gsw wrote in post #10587529
Interesting read and amazing amount of BS from PhaseOne's marketing. It is cleverly written, though, no doubt plenty people will believe everything they read in there.

I have to be honest. This article didn't convince me that DMF isn't any better. I guess I'll stick to my DSLRs.

tkbslc wrote in post #10587288
What's funny is that I bet a lot of people who have never shot FF would say the same thing about a similar article comparing FF and APS-C.

"hmm, I can't really tell the difference"...

...and an equal number of crop shooters who bought FF because of all the threads they've read on internet forums, who take one picture of their dog in the backyard and gush "omgz what a difference! It's like night and day, my eyes are bleeding!"

tkbslc wrote in post #10587381
MF has more pixels and pixel peeps better due to no AA filter.

It has higher resolution from better lenses, larger sensor, and no AA filter.

DR doesn't change with processing. It's all the useful tonal data...processing doesn't give you more or less data than you started with.

Yep. But most of those were true of 35mm vs MF/LF film, too, and yet "pro" photographers preferred MF. The difference is a 35mm digital camera isn't limited to a ~14" print like 35mm film, so MF gets pushed into more of a niche market than it was before.

In the end, nothing's changed. The smaller format is more responsive and portable, the larger one is clunkier with a much higher IQ ceiling, and it doesn't matter which you use if you just want a 6" print. Or a crappy ~2.4" "print," in the case of Facebook.

doesn't this debunk the myth that larger sensors means better noise performance?

No.

KCY wrote in post #10587917
doesn't this debunk the myth that larger sensors means better noise performance?

Hey, larger sensors are exactly what they are -- typically more resolution and more "stuff" in terms of whatever they gain in pixel-level light-gathering. Nothing magical, just the fact that you get more when you pay for more.

tonylong wrote in post #10587944
Hey, larger sensors are exactly what they are -- typically more resolution and more "stuff" in terms of whatever they gain in pixel-level light-gathering. Nothing magical, just the fact that you get more when you pay for more.

Fair enough

KCY wrote in post #10587917
doesn't this debunk the myth that larger sensors means better noise performance?

You can't directly compare the MF sensors to DSLR sensors on size alone because most DSLRs are CMOS while most (all?) MF is CCD.

It's also important to remember that with how the cameras are usually being used high ISO noise performance is simply not high on the list of design parameters. Just like film where I keep my 35mm camera loaded with B&W ASA400 film but my 645 is usually loaded with Velvia 50.

Just because one cannot SEE the difference does not mean there is not one. Here is a chart which I prepared, to show how many pixels are delivered per inch to a 16 x 20" print. Medium format wins on its delivered detail available from pixel count per inch on the final print, as shown in the rightmost column.

Also, because a larger sensor is not enlarged by as much magnification to make a given size of print, the optical resolution of the lens is taxed to a lesser degree. For example, if 135 format lens delivers 84 ll/mm of optical resolution while the medium format lens delivers 60 ll/mm, a 27x enlargement of APS-C results in 3 ll/mm on print, while 10x enlargement of medium format results in 6 ll/mm

Wilt wrote in post #10601533
Just because one cannot SEE the difference does not mean there is not one. Here is a chart which I prepared, to show how many pixels are delivered per inch to a 16 x 20" print. Medium format wins on its delivered detail available from pixel count per inch on the final print, as shown in the rightmost column.

Also, because a larger sensor is not enlarged by as much magnification to make a given size of print, the optical resolution of the lens is taxed to a lesser degree. For example, if 135 format lens delivers 84 ll/mm of optical resolution while the medium format lens delivers 60 ll/mm, a 27x enlargement of APS-C results in 3 ll/mm on print, while 10x enlargement of medium format results in 6 ll/mm

[IMG]

You left the mouse on that screen-shot and I was slightly confused for a second...

All of the above is an interesting read though.

^Thanks for posting that Wilt. For the regular Joe that buys prints from me, they will never see the difference.