Matt, I think I would prefer chilli & lemon..... .......although just because it has been removed does not mean some idiot has bought it....most of Ffordes gear is commision, so the owner may have pulled it. Also I have noticed on previous occasions that they sometimes remove items only for them to mysteriously reappear some little time later.... Cheers Grumpy Steve.
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Zeiss 21mm madness at Ffordes
- Thread starter grumpoid
- Start date
I am in the same position with Sergei and wonder how much better medium format perform better than my 21mm distagon. I have no practical experience with medium format but perhaps I will start by doing calculations.
24x35=840 sq. mm
60x45=2700 sq. mm
The area of 645 format is at least 3 times more than 35mm small format. It will contain at least three times more informations.
However, the lenses of medium format are not as good as those of the small format. Although you get a three times increase in area, the improvement is limited by the lenses.
I am in the position to choose the medium format. The way I am using my 21 mm distagon is stopping down to f5.6 and f8 with the tripod. I need something with small sizes and good lenses. I have the following choices.
Hassy SWC. Most people have this one in Hong Kong. Good mechanical camera with good second hand prices.
Mamiya 7 rangefinders. Small with good lenses. Great for wide angles but rangefinder is poor in focusing. Not good for 150mm. Might have poor services in the future.
Alpa 12 TC Even very experienced photographers rarely heard about this brand in Hong Kong. No mirror, no rangefinders, you basically rely on your instinct for the distance. Great reliable camera which doesn't need services. The shutter sounds better than Hassy SWC.
Bronica RF is out because the wide angle is not wide enough.
All SLRs in medium format are out because I don't like their sizes. I wouldn't use them for wide angles but I would choose them for portraits and macro work.
Well, there are other brands I need to find out. What about horseman, Cambo wide and Linhof ?
24x35=840 sq. mm
60x45=2700 sq. mm
The area of 645 format is at least 3 times more than 35mm small format. It will contain at least three times more informations.
However, the lenses of medium format are not as good as those of the small format. Although you get a three times increase in area, the improvement is limited by the lenses.
I am in the position to choose the medium format. The way I am using my 21 mm distagon is stopping down to f5.6 and f8 with the tripod. I need something with small sizes and good lenses. I have the following choices.
Hassy SWC. Most people have this one in Hong Kong. Good mechanical camera with good second hand prices.
Mamiya 7 rangefinders. Small with good lenses. Great for wide angles but rangefinder is poor in focusing. Not good for 150mm. Might have poor services in the future.
Alpa 12 TC Even very experienced photographers rarely heard about this brand in Hong Kong. No mirror, no rangefinders, you basically rely on your instinct for the distance. Great reliable camera which doesn't need services. The shutter sounds better than Hassy SWC.
Bronica RF is out because the wide angle is not wide enough.
All SLRs in medium format are out because I don't like their sizes. I wouldn't use them for wide angles but I would choose them for portraits and macro work.
Well, there are other brands I need to find out. What about horseman, Cambo wide and Linhof ?
Joseph, all the calculations are correct. However, this is just a part of the truth. Try to scan those 840 sq. mm. Moire - this is the real pain! All those MTF things, all that incredible 21mm sharpness wins almost nothing when it goes to a film surface. So does the MF optics, but it goes to 2700 sq. mm as you correctly noticed. So, while using MF we win almost 3.2 times in resolution regardless of differences in lenses sharpness (in case of MF we also win out of focus rendering quality, but this is another story). Digital might be another story too, that's for sure, but MF digital backs are not very much reachable so far.
I finally bought the Contax 645 with CZ 35/4 (and also 80/2, 120/4, 140/2.8, 210/4, CZ Jena 50/4, 180/2.8, 300/4 and Hassy 110/2). And I love it. Not looking for 21mm anymore
(hm, may be they will re-incarnate it im ZF mount - we'll see soon).
I finally bought the Contax 645 with CZ 35/4 (and also 80/2, 120/4, 140/2.8, 210/4, CZ Jena 50/4, 180/2.8, 300/4 and Hassy 110/2). And I love it. Not looking for 21mm anymore
Not yet. I bought it few weeks ago and I was waiting for Epson V-750 M. And finally amazon.com promised to start shipping on May 15, so I just preordered it yesterday. I'd love to share my opinion about this Contax 645 + Epson V-750 M setup with you guys as soon as I get it (end of May sounds realistic).
my experience with 6x6 vs 35mm is that 6x6 film size scans better at 4000dpi Nikon coolscan 9000 (and leads to fat 650MB tiff files or 20MB jpg) wheras 35mm size sometimes would need an expensive drum scanner.
medium formnat is NOT 3x larger, just a little bit larger with more room for cropping in practice!
medium formnat is NOT 3x larger, just a little bit larger with more room for cropping in practice!
What are you guys smoking, 'cause I want some.
Comparing 35mm with Medium Format in terms of image quality is like comparing Apples to Watermelons.
35mm is a wonderful format for portability, unobtrusiveness, and stuff like auto-focus speed. MF and beyond has been the commercial standard for decades, and for good reason.
While 35mm has always been commercially accepted for editorial type work, the image standard for product photography has, and continues, to be Medium Format and beyond ... including MF digital capture.
In practice 35mm has to be cropped to fit any known enlargement or ink-jet paper beyond proofs. 6X7 images scale up to require less cropping in practical print enlargements. 6X6 has long been a standard due to high volume production ( like wedding photography and catalog work ) with 5" X 5" proofs available at most every lab. Practical application of 6X6 has been versatility in cropping for Art Directors in need of bleed area and various publication sizes. Most wedding albums are square and the largest print they accept is a square.
While it is true that 35mm lenses have a higher resolving power than MF glass, they have to in order to produce images on such small real estate. MF lenses may not be quite as good, but they aren't 3 or 4 times worse.
The last 6X7 MF film I scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro produced a 800 meg file at 20" X 30" non interpolated print size. A Imacon 646 will produce an even larger cleaner file.
The net-net results you can expect from MF is much higher image quality in terms of tonal gradations, color fidelity, and ability to enlarge while retaining those qualities.
Comparing 35mm with Medium Format in terms of image quality is like comparing Apples to Watermelons.
35mm is a wonderful format for portability, unobtrusiveness, and stuff like auto-focus speed. MF and beyond has been the commercial standard for decades, and for good reason.
While 35mm has always been commercially accepted for editorial type work, the image standard for product photography has, and continues, to be Medium Format and beyond ... including MF digital capture.
In practice 35mm has to be cropped to fit any known enlargement or ink-jet paper beyond proofs. 6X7 images scale up to require less cropping in practical print enlargements. 6X6 has long been a standard due to high volume production ( like wedding photography and catalog work ) with 5" X 5" proofs available at most every lab. Practical application of 6X6 has been versatility in cropping for Art Directors in need of bleed area and various publication sizes. Most wedding albums are square and the largest print they accept is a square.
While it is true that 35mm lenses have a higher resolving power than MF glass, they have to in order to produce images on such small real estate. MF lenses may not be quite as good, but they aren't 3 or 4 times worse.
The last 6X7 MF film I scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro produced a 800 meg file at 20" X 30" non interpolated print size. A Imacon 646 will produce an even larger cleaner file.
The net-net results you can expect from MF is much higher image quality in terms of tonal gradations, color fidelity, and ability to enlarge while retaining those qualities.
D
djg
Marc, while I agree for the most part, "In practice 35mm has to be cropped to fit any known enlargement or ink-jet paper beyond proofs" is no longer true. I buy 11x17 and 13x19 paper that scales just about exactly to 35mm aspect ratio, as does roll paper which lets you vary the aspect ratio of the printed image.
I also do have to say that my 1Ds2 images do look better than my 20 year old medium format negs. However comparing them to current day MF technology is another story, as you mention
.
I also do have to say that my 1Ds2 images do look better than my 20 year old medium format negs. However comparing them to current day MF technology is another story, as you mention
Dear all, I am new to the forum, but I am very interested in this issue since I = have 35mm film, medium format film, & DSLR cameras. My intuition has = always been that film had to be able to record more information than any = sensor in a digital camera. So, I was very interested to find on a = review post of the Leica R8 a comment which said that the digital = equivalents of 35mm film are as follows: "amateur film equals 6mp; = critical kodachrome equals 12mp; critical Velvia equals 22mp; critical = balck & white equals 35mp." I remember reading similar results in a = review of the Leica 75mm f2M lens in Shutterbug magazine. Of course it = is a given that the camera is steady. To me this seems to mean that = 35mm scanned at very high resolution should be better than digital and = that 120 fim should be quite a bit better than digital, if the data = above is reliable. I'd be very interested in the views of others on = this matter since I am searching for the definitive answer myself. I = hope you find this interesting. Cheers, Dbrender
Well, I am in a position to look for a medium format scanner. Is Minolta Multi Pro any good ? Is it not as good as Imacon 646 ?
Here is my scanning experience with my Minolta 5400 for 35mm negatives. It produces a file of 220MB at 5400dpi. It is a great image especially at bright areas. However, it has a lot of artefacts in dark areas.
Here is my scanning experience with my Minolta 5400 for 35mm negatives. It produces a file of 220MB at 5400dpi. It is a great image especially at bright areas. However, it has a lot of artefacts in dark areas.