Medium format vs full frame.

[Jarei]

Hello everyone,

I was looking Pentax 645Z reviews and pic samples and get really interested over full frame. I never used DSLR but every time I looked to picture samples of D810 or Canon my impression is not big different over my Nikon 35mm SLR and its old lenses, which never impressed me.

I get mixed opinion from experts such D810 same as MF when using good lenses such Ziess (Milvus and Utos), and different between Pentax and D810 is little.

I would like to know how much difference is there between the 645z and high end, full-frame DSLR using the best primes?
I shoot mostly nature, cloud, landscape.

And thank you for answering.

 

[jcdeboever]

@Derrel is the technical guru and could probably shed some light between these two models. You may want to look at the Fujifilm GFX 50S due to it's new sensor and it is in the price range of the Pentax. FUJIFILM GFX 50S

 

[Ysarex]

Read this: Thinking about buying a Fujifilm GFX 50S? Read this first

Joe

 

[Gary A.]

Read this: Thinking about buying a Fujifilm GFX 50S? Read this first

Joe

I've never bought into that total light argument. Do you?

 

[jcdeboever]

I don't particularly care for DP Review, nor trust their opinion. I would be investigating non fan boy landscape photographers video's or reviews. Some of those arguments in that article are very short sighted and meaningless. Fuji doesn't need DP review is my first impression, just saying....

 

[Ysarex]

Read this: Thinking about buying a Fujifilm GFX 50S? Read this first

Joe

I've never bought into that total light argument. Do you?

It has been a contentious issue. I believe because it is complex and is so often poorly explained. It is also complicated by ancillary issues like pixel size and engineering implementation. So rather than re-start all that let's say this: The end result that the total light argument posits is demonstrably true. As the camera sensor sizes increase those cameras produce cleaner less noisy results than their smaller sensor counterparts. This is an advantage for the medium format camera.

I linked the article because it raises a range of questions appropriate for the OP to consider.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Digital "medium format" in the 44 x 33 sensor size needs to be renamed something other than medium format, which has long been 6 x 6 cm (58mm x 58mm is more accurate), or 6x7 cm, or 6x8 or 6x9, or even 6x17cm in the case of a wide-format rollfilm back or camera or two here and there. Even the smallest medium format film size was 6 x 4.5 cm. Ken Rockwell's recent arrempt to rename these new "medium format" cameras as mezzo format makes sense. This is a new format size, and it is not the 135 format, and it is MUCH smaller than 645 format.

Do the area calculations of 24x36mm, 44x33mm, 58x40mm, and 58x58, and so on and you'll see that these new "medium format" digital cameras are really not that much larger than the area of a 24 x 36mm or so-called full frame format digital camera.

I read the dPreview article yesterday; reaction to it on the Fuji GFX 50 Facebook page has been swift and filled with hue and cry from the folks who've convinced themselves that it is the next best thing since sliced bread. And there is a positive side to the GFX: super-fast compatibility with multiple lens adapters that have already hit the stores and the web vendors. I have **never** seen adapters for a new camera created as rapidly as for this new Fuji. And the performance of the camera with adapted lenses from Nikon, Zeiss,Mamiya, Canon, etc. has been very,very good. A wide range of 35mm system lenses are offering full coverage with the lens. The fact that lenses designed for 24 x 36mm film cameras (the 135 format as it has been known for decades) can cover this new Fuji's sensor area is an indicator that it's not true "medium format" at all.

A typical 24 x 36mm sensor needs about a 43mm diameter image circle from the lens; an APS-C sensor requires a 29mm image circle diameter. So, there are plenty of legacy 35mm system (Nikon,Canon,Leica M and R, etc.) lenses in existence that can cover the new Fuji GFX 50's image sensor. And I think that is one factor Fuji was aware of, and planned for, and cooperated with adapter developers and makers during the run-up to the release of the GFX 50; the adpaters are already available for purchase, for multiple lens mounts: Mamiya, Leica-M, Leica-R, Hasselblad, Nikon F, Canon EF, and more!

The image quality of the Fuji GFX is very, very nice--as is the image quality of 36- and 42-, and 50-MP FX cameras from Nikon, Sony, and Canon. Make no mistake about it: this is a bigger sensor than 24x36mm, and the detail it can show is very high. But as Ysarex mentioned, the article dPreview released tries to shed some light on the Giant-killer type claims that have been floated about mezzo format digital as it relates to 24x36 format digital.

 

[Ysarex]

Digital "medium format" in the 44 x 33 sensor size needs to be renamed something other than medium format, which has long been 6 x 6 cm (58mm x 58mm is more accurate), or 6x7 cm, or 6x8 or 6x9, or even 6x17cm in the case of a wide-format rollfilm back or camera or two here and there. Even the smallest medium format film size was 6 x 4.5 cm. Ken Rockwell's recent arrempt to rename these new "medium format" cameras as mezzo format makes sense. This is a new format size, and it is not the 135 format, and it is MUCH smaller than 645 format.

Do the area calculations of 24x36mm, 44x33mm, 58x40mm, and 58x58, and so on and you'll see that these new "medium format" digital cameras are really not that much larger than the area of a 24 x 36mm or so-called full frame format digital camera.

I read the dPreview article yesterday; reaction to it on the Fuji GFX 50 Facebook page has been swift and filled with hue and cry from the folks who've convinced themselves that it is the next best thing since sliced bread. And there is a positive side to the GFX: super-fast compatibility with multiple lens adapters that have already hit the stores and the web vendors. I have **never** seen adapters for a new camera created as rapidly as for this new Fuji. And the performance of the camera with adapted lenses from Nikon, Zeiss,Mamiya, Canon, etc. has been very,very good. A wide range of 35mm system lenses are offering full coverage with the lens. The fact that lenses designed for 24 x 36mm film cameras (the 135 format as it has been known for decades) can cover this new Fuji's sensor area is an indicator that it's not true "medium format" at all.

A typical 24 x 36mm sensor needs about a 43mm diameter image circle from the lens; an APS-C sensor requires a 29mm image circle diameter. So, there are plenty of legacy 35mm system (Nikon,Canon,Leica M and R, etc.) lenses in existence that can cover the new Fuji GFX 50's image sensor. And I think that is one factor Fuji was aware of, and planned for, and cooperated with adapter developers and makers during the run-up to the release of the GFX 50; the adpaters are already available for purchase, for multiple lens mounts: Mamiya, Leica-M, Leica-R, Hasselblad, Nikon F, Canon EF, and more!

The image quality of the Fuji GFX is very, very nice--as is the image quality of 36- and 42-, and 50-MP FX cameras from Nikon, Sony, and Canon. Make no mistake about it: this is a bigger sensor than 24x36mm, and the detail it can show is very high. But as Ysarex mentioned, the article dPreview released tries to shed some light on the Giant-killer type claims that have been floated about mezzo format digital as it relates to 24x36 format digital.

I still have my baby Rollei; one of the film cameras I had to keep for nostalgia. The format was 4x4 and used 127 film as opposed to 120. It was kind of odd out back in the film days. Remember 2x2 square slides? We can call the new Fuji a baby medium format.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Yes, I remember the baby Rollei! The so-called Super Slide format of 4 x 4: a slide that was larger in image area than a 135 format slide-but which would fit within the size of a 35mm slide AND which could be projected in a 35mm slide projector! What a great concept.

I wanted a baby Rollei back in the 1970's as a kid.

 

[Gary A.]

I like the idea of FF lens covering a larger than FF sensor.

 

[Derrel]

I like the idea of FF lens covering a larger than FF sensor.

So do many people in the Fuji GFX 50 Facebook group! Log into Facebook | Facebook

I've seen VERY good performance from a number of classic yet affordable Nikkors: 50mm f/2, 180 ED-Ai-S, 105mm f/2.5, and also the very new 200-500mm AF-S zoom from Nikon. I saw a post with photos made by, I want to say 13 different legacy Nikkor lenses, about two weeks ago. Canon's 17mm Tilt/Shift lens is very good on the new Fuji. This new camera from Fuji has worked wonderfully with a BUNCH of adapted lenses. In part this is due to the focal plane shutter the camera has, as well as the smallish sensor dimensions.

 

[ronlane]

Last Thurday night, I went on a photowalk sponsored by Fujifilm and shot the X-Pro2. At this event, they had one of those GFX 50's. I didn't look at it or mess with it, now I wished that I had and took some images with it.

 

[gk fotografie]

Digital "medium format" in the 44 x 33 sensor size needs to be renamed something other than medium format, which has long been 6 x 6 cm (58mm x 58mm is more accurate), or 6x7 cm, or 6x8 or 6x9, or even 6x17cm in the case of a wide-format rollfilm back or camera or two here and there. Even the smallest medium format film size was 6 x 4.5 cm. Ken Rockwell's recent arrempt to rename these new "medium format" cameras as mezzo format makes sense. This is a new format size, and it is not the 135 format, and it is MUCH smaller than 645 format.

Do the area calculations of 24x36mm, 44x33mm, 58x40mm, and 58x58, and so on and you'll see that these new "medium format" digital cameras are really not that much larger than the area of a 24 x 36mm or so-called full frame format digital camera.

I read the dPreview article yesterday; reaction to it on the Fuji GFX 50 Facebook page has been swift and filled with hue and cry from the folks who've convinced themselves that it is the next best thing since sliced bread. And there is a positive side to the GFX: super-fast compatibility with multiple lens adapters that have already hit the stores and the web vendors. I have **never** seen adapters for a new camera created as rapidly as for this new Fuji. And the performance of the camera with adapted lenses from Nikon, Zeiss,Mamiya, Canon, etc. has been very,very good. A wide range of 35mm system lenses are offering full coverage with the lens. The fact that lenses designed for 24 x 36mm film cameras (the 135 format as it has been known for decades) can cover this new Fuji's sensor area is an indicator that it's not true "medium format" at all.

A typical 24 x 36mm sensor needs about a 43mm diameter image circle from the lens; an APS-C sensor requires a 29mm image circle diameter. So, there are plenty of legacy 35mm system (Nikon,Canon,Leica M and R, etc.) lenses in existence that can cover the new Fuji GFX 50's image sensor. And I think that is one factor Fuji was aware of, and planned for, and cooperated with adapter developers and makers during the run-up to the release of the GFX 50; the adpaters are already available for purchase, for multiple lens mounts: Mamiya, Leica-M, Leica-R, Hasselblad, Nikon F, Canon EF, and more!

The image quality of the Fuji GFX is very, very nice--as is the image quality of 36- and 42-, and 50-MP FX cameras from Nikon, Sony, and Canon. Make no mistake about it: this is a bigger sensor than 24x36mm, and the detail it can show is very high. But as Ysarex mentioned, the article dPreview released tries to shed some light on the Giant-killer type claims that have been floated about mezzo format digital as it relates to 24x36 format digital.

Why not start overhere at TPF to call it (digital) SuperSlide Format or SSF (just like -MF- Medium Format and -LF- Large Format) and literally conquer the world by spreading "this word"...
Strange enough, few weeks ago, I was thinking how great it would be to have a digital 4x4 Rollei TLR, very weird!

 

[Derrel]

Maybe call it D-43? Digital 44 x 33, reminding users its like Double 4 and Double 3? 44 x 33 mm?

 

[Ysarex]

Maybe call it D-43? Digital 44 x 33, reminding users its like Double 4 and Double 3? 44 x 33 mm?

I say we clean up the whole mess with a simpler system: Small, Medium and Large. We can call it the FF value (FF-S, FF-M, FF-L). Anything smaller than m4/3 is FF-S, m4/3, APS and FX are FF-M, anything larger than FX is FF-L and with the option to super size that.

Joe