[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 22gaou.jpg (97 KB, 1200x794)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
is it time to sell all the 35mm gear and get a bronica 6x6 and dslr scan setup?

The perspective difference might be a real thing. For the same field of view you can use a longer focal length. If you fill a 35mm FF frame with someone's face it will look gross, but the same frame on MF will be with a 70mm lens and it will look fine. Unsure if this makes a difference IRL

I call BS on "tonality" They say that for the same field of view vs MF and FF, because there is more space on the MF cam to make the tonal transition, the range of tones is represented better. In signal processing this is like increasing the spatial sampling rate of the scene. IMO I can't see how that helps for anything except small details.

Resolution is probably better, you can get what was like 25k worth of gear for 500 dollars now.
>>
File: tonesacrossformats.png (1.44 MB, 1800x1500)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB PNG
>>3748815
>The perspective difference might be a real thing.
kek, it's not. perspective has nothing at all to do with focal length. it's a matter of distance-to-subject and that's it. Longer lenses have exactly the same effect on perspective as cropping your photo.

>I call BS on "tonality"
this, on the other hand, is real. Silver crystals or dye couplets stay the same size no matter the format of your film, but as you commit more crystals to your subject, the quality goes up. Attached are a few illustrations of that. The first one is just the common format sizes (for film, for digital it's a different equation) with a simple gradient to represent a full range of tonality. I then ran 10% uniform noise across all of them to simulate film "noise". You'll notice that as the image gets larger, the tonality gets smoother and the noise less apparent.
>>
File: 36mmenlargement.png (927 KB, 938x750)
927 KB
927 KB PNG
>>3748849
And if you compare enlargements, it really starts to become apparent. This is a 36mm frame enlarged to 8x10, and then an 8x10 "contact print" next to it.
>>
File: 36mmcomparedto6x6.png (509 KB, 1122x748)
509 KB
509 KB PNG
>>3748851
But you're not shooting 8x10, you're shooting 6x6. Here's the approximate comparison for those two formats, with the 35mm blown up to 6x6 size.
>>
>>3748849
This is a very intuitive way to explain this anon. Great job.

What are the primary components of sensor size that affect tonal range? Is that even a valid question or is it something else?
>>
Yes, because of the slallow dof.
>>
>>3748849
>>3748851
>>3748853
This may be true if you're pushing the limits of your negative size but 35mm can go pretty big before you reach the grain. I find it hard to believe that a 35mm photo when seen at typical desktop resolutions will show any less detail than larger formats. Also, this won't apply to digital (not that you're saying it will) because pixel sizes can vary, depending on sensor density.

Also keep in mind that many of the “MF look” MF photos you look at online will have been digitised with a “small” 36x24mm digital camera
>>
File: cropscompared.gif (132 KB, 1000x1000)
132 KB
132 KB GIF
>>3748856
For film, it's literally just the size of the format compared to the optical size your subject occupies on that film (in other words, resolution), and the enlargement ratio. Attached are two seemingly identical images, but they're "shot" on two different film formats. The left is the original 36x24mm frame from the first image, and then I cropped a 36x24mm frame out of the center of the big, smooth, beautiful 8x10 in the same image.

And, guess what? They're functionally the same, as you would expect them to be if you really think about it. There's nothing inherently magical about larger film. You could cut up a sheet of 8x10 and get a bunch of 36x24mm frames. But, you have to enlarge larger film LESS than smaller film to get the same size print, which minimizes the physical appearance of grain, especially in relation to the size of the subject.
>>
>>3748877
>This may be true if you're pushing the limits of your negative size but 35mm can go pretty big before you reach the grain. I find it hard to believe that a 35mm photo when seen at typical desktop resolutions will show any less detail than larger formats

Sort of? The thing is, the relative size of the film grain (compared to the size of the film) will always decrease as you go up in formats, so even if you're shooting well below the threshold where you start picking up grain, you'll still see an improved tonality and detail from the larger format.
>>
>>3748861
>Yes, because of the slallow dof.
Not exactly because of the shallow DoF.

With a few exceptions, medium format lenses are relatively slow compared to their 35mm counterparts, so the shallower DoF you get from the larger format* is counteracted by the narrower aperture. That being said, you can often get the SAME shallow depth of field with a much sharper subject. E.g., shooting at something like f/2.8 on a 6x6 will give you about the same depth of field as about f/1.4 on 35mm, but it's much easier to make a lens sharp at f/2.8, plus the higher resolution of medium format makes it sharper all over.

So the medium format camera will give you shallow depth of field where the subject looks as sharp as if you were shooting stopped down a bunch while a 35mm or full frame digital camera will give you that depth of field with much much less optical quality because it's hard to get an f/1.4 lens to be sharp wide open or an f/1.0 lens to be sharp stopped down one stop.

* Pedantically: The shallower DoF you get from using a longer focal length or moving closer with the same focal length. Effectively the same thing, but someone will bitch if I just say "larger format means shallower DoF"
>>
>>3748849
>perspective has nothing at all to do with focal length. it's a matter of distance-to-subject and that's it. Longer lenses have exactly the same effect on perspective as cropping your photo.
To expand on this, since fucking cuck got it right and /p/ gets this wrong so frequently and a lot of people have a hard time with it:

Go out and look at any set of equally-spaced things going off into the distance--e.g., streetlights, or the dashed lines painted down a road. See how the farther away ones look like they're closer together? If you imagine cropping just those far-away ones, that's pretty much exactly what a long lens is doing. Make a little rectangle with your fingers and look at the box it encloses and you'll see the exact same telephoto compression you do with a long lens, even though there are no optics in your finger-rectangle.

Another proof of this: Consider the very, very short focal lengths on tiny sensors like you get in a cellphone. If focal length were what gave you different perspectives, the ~4mm lens in a cell phone would give you insanely ultrawide perspective (and, okay, they do normally give you wide or ultrawide, but a 4mm lens on 35mm would give you see-behind-yourself fisheye perspective).

Finally, consider interchangeable-lens rangefinders. They literally show you your framing/perspective using little lines in an otherwise invariant viewfinder. The optics don't change when you swap lenses; it just puts different lines in the finder. If the focal length changed your perspective, those viewfinders wouldn't work at all.
>>
>>3748815
Yes and anyone who says otherwise is unaware

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1140
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3748965
are you the guy that took the picture of the Walmart sign
>>
>>3748972
no but you must be the guy that didn’t own a camera
>>
>>3748983
>>3748965
what aspects of these pics are impossible on 35mm

very very nice pictures, btw
>>
>>3748996
Thanks, these are just snaps as my more serious stuff doesn’t have enough DOF to really show off The Look (tm). Honestly if you can’t see the glaring difference nothing I point out is going to make it click. Sorry if that sounds dickish just keeping it real.
>>
>>3748815
>The perspective difference might be a real thing.
>I call BS on "tonality"
The other way round.
>>
>>3749027
>has never taken a good MF shot ever

later nerd
>>
>>3749107
He's not wrong, though.
>>
>>3749114
Hey if you don’t think compression is a thing then that’s your truth anon.
>>
>>3749119
Compression is for jpegs and apparel. Everything else is an illusion.
>>
>>3748965
This is gorgeous
>>
File: 7.jpg (278 KB, 1876x1900)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>3748815
Yeah, but there are advantages and disadvantages to both MF and 35mm. I really like both formats for different reasons, in terms of quality, MF wins hands down, but if you need speed, its difficult to be fast with a MF camera
Advantages:
-Better resolution
-Smooth tonality of film with the detail of digital
-extremely well built cameras
-more depth of field*
*depending on lens choice

disadvantages:
-cost, both film and gear
-lack of film options
-lack of fast shutter speeds
-lack of super fast lenses
-usually need a tripod
-heavy
-slow as balls

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Modeld-lab.2/3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.2 (Windows)
PhotographerOnly the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:10 15:48:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3749119
I do think compression is a thing. I just actually understand what it is. See my previous reply: >>3748944

Using an 80mm on medium format does NOT give you the same perspective compression as 80mm on full frame. It gives you the same perspective compression as a 50mm (more or less, depending on which medium format you're using and accounting for differences in aspect ratios etc. My point is that a normal lens is going to give you normal-lens perspective regardless of format it's a normal for).

If you don't think that's the case, you're simply wrong. And *easily*, *demonstrably* wrong. I can demonstrate how wrong you are with equipment in arm's reach of me if necessary.
>>
>>3749130
You're right anon, people are just retarded. The reason MF has more DOF is bc you need a longer focal length for the same perspective.
>>
>>3749127
I know it must be tough not being able to see stuff that other people can
>>
>>3749132
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who can see that you're a big wrongo dummy boy.
>>
>>3749130
So you’re saying if I adapt an 80mm medium format lens to a smaller sensor it becomes a 50? Cool.
>>
>>3749136
No retard, he's saying that the for same field of view on a 6x6 negative vs 35mm you have to have a longer focal length.
>>
>>3749136
>So you’re saying if I adapt an 80mm medium format lens to a smaller sensor it becomes a 50? Cool.
Nope! I'm saying that if you adapt an 80mm medium format lens to a smaller sensor, it's an 80mm and will give you short-telephoto perspective, but if you use it on a medium format camera it will be a normal lens and give you normal perspective.

The reason is that THE FOCAL LENGTH DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE PERSPECTIVE. If you stick that 80 on a smaller-sensor camera, you're gonna move back to get the scene in frame, and that's what's giving you that telephoto perspective. If you stayed in the same place, you'd get the same photo as the medium format camera if you cropped it (hence the term 'crop factor'), and yes, that does mean that the perspective is different when you just crop a photo because you're looking at a farther-away subset of the image.
>>
>>3749136
>>3749142
You can also see this if you have a zoom lens handy.

Twist it to the wide end. Look at something far away. Pay attention to how close the things far away look to each other (i.e., their perspective compression). Twist it to the tele end while still aimed at the same far away spot. Note that the perspective of those far away objects does not change when you zoom; you just lose the outside edges of your frame.
>>
How is it /p/tards understand crop factor from FF to aps-c digital, yet not for MF to 35mm film?

the reason most /p/tards don't understand the MF look:
>all MF posts to /p/ are from amateurs with shitty Holgas and shitty subjects
>all MF posts to /p/ are at reduced resolution or even scanned at same total resolution as 35mm, negating the benefits

quit worrying about formats and perceived benefits and just shoot with what you have until you are hitting limits!
>>
>>3749142
Wait I thought you said compression wasn’t a thing?
>>
>>3749143
What if I do this with a subject not far away, like a persons head a normal portrait distance.
>>
>>3749154
It would be the same as cropping my guy. Longer focal lengths don't change perspective, they just crop tighter.
>>
>>3749156
at the same distance yes, but if you compose the same frame with a 50mm and say a 105mm on the same camera there is a noticeable difference
>>
>>3749153
>Wait I thought you said compression wasn’t a thing?
No, I'm the guy from >>3749130 who explicitly said compression was a thing but that you were misunderstanding what causes it.

>>3749154
>What if I do this with a subject not far away, like a persons head a normal portrait distance.
Same thing, it's just less dramatic the closer you are so doing it with something far away makes a more clear and obvious demo.

>>3749158
> if you compose the same frame with a 50mm and say a 105mm on the same camera there is a noticeable difference
Because to compose the same frame with a 50mm and a 105mm, you have to step back a bunch with the 105mm.

When you step back, the subject is farther away and you get the telephoto compression.
>>
>>3749158
>but if you compose the same frame with a 50mm and say a 105mm on the same camera there is a noticeable difference

Only if you move the camera. If you leave the camera alone, you could crop the 50 in to match the 105mm framing. It's pretty straightforward.
>>
>>3749119
So as I mentioned in >>3749130, I had the gear within arm's reach to do a quick comparison.

This is shot from a 5D (full frame sensor) with a lens at 20mm (plus a small crop to match the 4:3 aspect ratio of the second camera in the comparison). I've placed several rolls of medium format film at equal distances apart (as you can see with the pens between 'em).

Coming up after this, I have a shot from a Canon SD1400IS, which has a 1/2.3" sensor (so a 5.6x crop factor) and the longest focal length it can do is 20mm.

So if your argument is correct, and the focal length alone determines the perspective compression, these two shots that were both taken with 20mm lenses and as-close-as-I-could-match-them framing should have the same perspective, right? That roll of Fuji NPH 400 in the front should look just as close to that roll of Portra in the back as they do in this shot, right?
>>
File: P201026-5738.jpg (390 KB, 1000x750)
390 KB
390 KB JPG
>>3749170
Whoops, typed all that out and forgot to attach the image. Here's the 5D shot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating3200
Shutter Speed1/125 sec
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Exposure ModeAuto
>>
File: P201026-1803.jpg (445 KB, 1000x750)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>3749171
And here's the SD1400is shot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot SD1400 IS
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
F-Numberf/5.9
ISO Speed Rating800
Shutter Speed1/5 sec
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Exposure ModeAuto
>>
>>3749163
>When you step back, the subject is farther away and you get the telephoto compression.
also known as perspective distortion...i.e. the perspective has change
>>
>>3748856
>What components of sensor size affect tonality

Just sensor size, and it's the same with digital. Sensors\film is just a signal recording medium, the more signal you can capture, the greater your signal-to-noise ratio is, which is the basic measurement of any input-output device, and it also dictates the dynamic range of said circuit.

Hence why buying Digi crop is the dumbest thing you can do, on film 35mm makes sense as film and developing is expensive, with 12 shots on mf costing the same as 36 shots on 135.

Don't sell the 135 gear though.

>>3748877
>I don't think mf looks different
Then you've probably never shot medium format, it is immediately apparent even on a standard 6x4 print.
>Digi is different because pixel sizes
No, you're not viewing photos pixel by pixel, you view whole images, so total pixel area is the important factor, with FF having twice as much surface area it has twice as good signal to noise - regardless of pixel size. We can prove this just by seeing that dynamic range (and thus snr) between say the Sony a7iii and a7riii is almost identical.

>But mf shots have been digitised by a smaller sensor

Irrelevant, the film has already compressed the data into a format that fits within the digital cameras capabilities. Just because film can capture 20+ stops of dynamic range does not mean it is presented still with 20+ stops of Dr.

>>3748943
It's not just that slow lenses are easier to make sharp, most mf lenses are pretty fucking soft, but that larger sensors are much more forgiving on lenses, a twice as large sensor only needs a lens that resolves half as well to give equal quality final images. 67 is 8 times larger than 135!

Also another reason Digi crop is a false economy.

>>3749027
Wrong, perspective difference is definitely real, yet again Gianni's flaunting his ignorance, why don't you post another one of your absolute trash tier snapshots.
>>
>>3749222
>Wrong, perspective difference is definitely real

Nah. You’ll have to show your work for that claim.
>>
>>3749302
You’re asking for proof the sky is blue my guy. Go shoot some MF lol.
>>
>>3749302
>expecting anyone on /p/ to show their work
/p/ has encyclopedic knowledge on camera formats and all that jazz but good luck expecting photos, there's a reason these threads hit bump limit and photo threads that aren't made by isi fall to page 10 in 48 hours
>>
>>3749222
>Wrong, perspective difference is definitely real
To be clear, no one is saying that perspective differences are not a real thing. What we are saying is that perspective differences are a function of camera-to-subject distance, not focal length (although the combination of focal length + format size will dictate the subject-to-camera distance for a given framing).

I.e., when you take into account the crop factor, equivalent lenses on different format sizes will have the same perspective.

There is a myth--which you seem to be agreeing with here, but it might just be that you misunderstood what Giannis was saying--that the "medium format look" is because the longer lens gives you telephoto compression while still having a wider field of view to get your whole scene in, but that's not how perspective compression works.

And again, this is very easy to demonstrate as you can see in these two photos >>3749171
>>3749172 which have vastly different perspective despite both being taken with 20mm lenses on different formats.
>>
>>3749302

sure, here's a shot taken with a 50mm equivalent lens, why is the dof compression so much different to 50mm on ff?

>>3749313
>with equivalent lenses the shots will look the same

See pic related, does that look like a 50mm on ff shot to you?

>listening to giannis

LMFAO you've proven yourself stupid there.
>>
>>3749314
pic
>>
>>3749313
I'm op, looks like i got it completely backwards in my op post according to >>3749171 >>3749172. so it sounds like for the same field of view, medium format will exaggerate differences in depth, not the other way around
>>
Recalculate the MF lens that has "the look" into 35mm using Northrup equivalent (apply crop factor to f-number) and see if that lens exists. If it doesn't exist, you cannot get the same look on 35mm. This is it really, pupil size and sharpness is what you are going to be after.
>>
>>3749313
>(although the combination of focal length + format size will dictate the subject-to-camera distance for a given framing).

Lmao so in other words, the difference is focal length you just don’t want to admit it.
>>
>>3749316
Not the guy you're talking to but this looks to be what I'd see if I picked up a full frame camera and put a 50mm lens on it, speaking as someone who shoots with a 50 quite often. I'm not sure what about this perspective is different.
>>
>>3749314
>>3749316
>See pic related, does that look like a 50mm on ff shot to you?
Yeah, if you frame a 50mm FF shot with that much empty space around your subject, it'll look like that.

Literally run the test. Grab a 35mm camera, take the two pics with equivalent focal lengths from the same distance. It'll look the same in terms of compression/perspective.

Hell, you don't even need to take the actual pictures; just look through the viewfinders and you'll see they look about the same.

>>3749317
> so it sounds like for the same field of view, medium format will exaggerate differences in depth, not the other way around
Nope, for the same field of view, medium format will give you the same perspective compression.
>>
>>3749314
>the dof compression

The what?
>>
>>3749321
>Lmao so in other words, the difference is focal length you just don’t want to admit it.
No, not in this context.

As an analogy, consider the standard exposure variables. Saying "Increasing your ISO gives you less motion blur" CAN be correct in a certain context, since increasing your ISO lets you use a faster shutter speed, but when explicitly talking about which of the variables relates to motion blur, it's incorrect. Increasing your ISO (and letting your shutter speed increase to compensate) gives you less motion blur. Increasing your ISO (and keeping your shutter speed constant) gives you the same motion blur.

It's a similar thing here. If we're keeping format size constant and keeping our framing of the shot constant by moving forwards or backwards, then yes, changing your focal length will change the perspective.

However, if we keep our field of view constant by changing BOTH the focal length AND format size and stay in the same spot when taking the photos, perspective doesn't change.

The reason is the perspective is controlled by the subject-to-camera distance, not the focal length.
>>
>>3749337
Oh dope so I don’t need any of my portrait lenses anymore I can just crop from a wide angle.
>>
>>3749339
In a perfect world with a perfect sensor with infinite resolution, yes, you could do just that.
>>
>>3749330
>>3749332
Lol, spot the people that have never touched a camera

>>3749335
how quick the oof areas transition

>>3749337
> is controlled by the subject-to-camera distance, not the focal length.

But the subject-to-camera distance IS controlled by the focal length and sensor size.
>>
>>3749339
I mean, yeah, you sound like you’re saying that sarcastically, but it'd work. You’d just lose a bunch of resolution from the crop.

If you actually own a wide angle and portrait lens like you claim, you don’t have to take my word for it. Pick them up, actually take two pictures from the same spot, crop to match, and compare.
>>
>>3749341
> But the subject-to-camera distance IS controlled by the focal length and sensor size.
Yes. So, if you change the focal length and the format size to match field of view while holding subject to camera distance constant, you get the same perspective. That’s the whole point I’m making.

The claim I’m arguing against is that changing the focal length to match when you change format sizes still changes the perspective compression even when subject to camera distance doesn’t change and framing doesn’t change. That’s false.
>>
File: 003.jpg (4 MB, 2001x1602)
4 MB
4 MB JPG
nothing more fun than watching sensorlets delude themselves into thinking that format size doesn't affect the final image kek
>>
>>3749341
>If you disagree with me you're wrong
Okay, it's no big task to take a MF shot with a 50 equivalent lens then take the same shot with a 50 on a 135 format camera. But you can't even do that.
>>
>>3749341
>how quick the oof areas transition
I see. It seems like you're talking about something else entirely. Everyone else is talking about optical perspective, you're talking about depth of field. This is why people get confused and myths persist, because no one can ever be clear about their terms, and because people change too many variables t once.

If you're insinuating that MF has narrower depth of field, then yeah, you're absolutely right, and that narrow DOF does contribute heavily to the "look". It's why so many people were simulating a MF sensor with the brenizer method 8 years ago. (and that's exactly what the brenizer method does: it simulates a medium or large format sensor)
>>
>>3749354
I think the issue is a lot of people believe that there is no difference in how the DOF looks between sensors.
>>
>>3749349
>format size doesn't affect the final image
We're not arguing that format size has no effect on the final image. We're arguing *what* that effect is.

Difference in perspective? No.

Difference in resolution and all of the advantages that come with that (sharpness, tonality, bokeh, etc)? Yes.
>>
>>3749357
I haven't seen that argument in this thread at all, and none-too-frequently on this board, either. I think most people do accept that a larger sensor has a thinner depth of field.
>>
>>3749365
I’ve seen the “aperture equivalence” argument on here a lot.
>>
>>3749378
True, but I suspect those come from people who grok the idea that the depth of field changes with format. Who really knows what goes through the minds of /p/haggots, however.
>>
>>3749349
All that posturing about your sensor size and you took a picture of a tree and some flowers. Amazing.
>>
>>3749351
Bet you I can take those shots, can't get film processed at the moment though.
>>
>>3749392
That's cool, I can wait, I asked calmly and nicely for you to explain why the *perspective* on that shot is somehow different from that of a 50mm shot from a 135 format camera, and got told I've clearly never touched a camera. So, I'm waiting to learn something anon.
>>
>>3749386
What's more, he posted that shitty picture of a tree and some flower for all to see on anoymous forums!
>>
>>3749386
Actually I took a photo of my backyard :^)
>>
I do have to urge anyone who is thinking about jumping into medium format to at least TRY and accompany someone on a shoot who has one.

Medium format cameras are way, way different than what you might be used to if you've only ever shot 35mm or digital. Something as simple and common as loading film becomes very twiddly and fussy depending on your body, and it's something you'll be doing frequently as you only get 12 frames to a roll. Cameras are also H E A V Y. A big studio-centric camera like an RZ67 or an SQ is akin to carrying around a car battery all day long. Your camera of choice may not have TTL metering, which is another consideration. Do you want to trust some chinese app on your phone to meter correctly? Do you want to take a second camera with you? Do you want to carry a sekonic around your neck all day? Everything about the cameras are big. Lenses are huge. Film backs are big. If your style is to throw everything into an XL Pelican (I use the harbor freight equivalent) and drive to a location, you might be alright, but if your style is to walk around, medium format might be more of a hindrance than you expect. There's a reason 35mm very quickly became the standard for journalists doing field work and medium format was relegated to studio, portraits, commercial, and serious fine art photography.
>>
>>3748849
>>3748851
>>3748853
blessed posts


>>3748849
>(for film, for digital it's a different equation)
can you do one for digital pls?
>>
>>3749436
And get same shit that people in this thread and pimpleassguy end up getting? lol, no. I think I'll sooner move to point and shoot.
>>
>>3749436
Not even mentioning the cost and time with developing and printing or scanning. It all may seem increasingly less worth it when you see what's involved. Sometimes I think the people who act like it's the photography endgame are just justifying it to themselves but what do I know? I'm just a filthy sensorlet.
>>
>>3749436
MF is for paid photographers, not “walking around”
>>
>>3749449
It's amazing that you were able to post from 1984.

It's even more amazing that you were able to single out the one part of the post where you thought you could puff out your chest and brag, as if i didn't literally type out medium format is for "studio, portraits, commercial and serious fine art photography".
>>
>>3749440
I gotta go to my real job, but I'll see if I can work on one tonight.
>>
>>3749452
thanks anon, i guess tripfags on this board aren't so bad after all
>>
>>3749451
Was literally agreeing with you but yeah must have struck a chord. Enjoy earning your hourly wages for today I guess lmao.
>>
>>3749436
>A big studio-centric camera like an RZ67
I like walking around with my RZ thank you very much. I do need to find a good meter though...
>>
>>3749938
You must be swole for days my guy. What do you bench?

>>3749462
That's a funny way of agreeing. And I'll have you know that I am a very important wagey in my cagey. They gave me three extra biscuits yesterday during my lunch minute!
>>
>>3749942
Mostly just cardio/warehouse work. I cradle it two handed when I walk though. Really need to get a strap or a handle for it. Especially if I'm able to save enough for a trip in the spring. Planning on just a dedicated month of straight daily walking/shooting.
>>
>>3749942
Cringe
>>
>>3749957
May I recommend pic related for a strap and meter. I bench two plate and still wouldn’t say I “enjoy” carrying this camera. I only bring it to paid shoots at this point.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1125
Image Height1500
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1594331557654.jpg (112 KB, 410x598)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>3749959
here take this
>>
>>3749957
>Really need to get a strap or a handle for it.
Dang. Do you at least have a good camera bag to stick it in when you're not actively taking a picture, or do you just hold onto it for the whole roll?
>>
>>3750015
he carries it around in a discuss thrower position
>>
>>3748815
The “MF” look approaches the 35mm digital look. If that’s what you’re going for with film, then sure.
>>
>>3749351
>equivalent
there's the problem kek
50 mm on 135 has the same DoF as 50mm on MF given the same aperture, but it will be a crop of the MF photo.
>>
>>3750015
I use one of the old chrome camera bags but I need to make an insert for it. I'll most likely get a different bag though sometime. I mostly just free carry if im walking a few miles in the same zone. Otherwise i just toss it in the bag and ride my bike around.
>he carries it around in a discuss thrower position
accurate
>>
>>3750049
We've been talking about perspective compression, not DoF.
>>
>>3750053
Another bullshit claim.
You take a pic of a subject 10 meters from you with the same focal distance on a 135 and a MF and the 135 is just a crop of the same picture.
The difference is when you want the same FoV on both.
>>
>>3750055
When you want the same FOV and subject size in the frame MF will have more compression. This is the simple fact that sensorlets seethe over.
>>
File: 1599668608749.jpg (4.89 MB, 3000x2400)
4.89 MB
4.89 MB JPG
>>3748815
careful with the DSLR scan setup. i mean if you already have the DSLR it's worth a shot but it looks like a time suck...
>>
>>3750066
What do you mean by “compression”?
>>
>>3750094
Fairies and magic, and buttplugs. This thread is such a joke...
>>
>>3750109
>justsensorletthings
>>
>>3750066
>When you want the same FOV and subject size in the frame MF will have more compression. This is the simple fact that sensorlets seethe over.
Okay, so, let me see if you're arguing what I think you're arguing.

You're saying that:

1. If you keep the field of view constant (i.e., *equivalent* focal lengths but not equal focal lengths, like ~50mm on a 135 and ~80mm on a 645), and

2. the subject size constant (i.e., you're shooting with the same camera-to-subject distance), that

3. the shot taken on the larger format size will exhibit more perspective compression (i.e., things further in the background will look like they're closer.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you're saying?

If so, do you also agree with the logical corollary to that, which is that

A. If you keep the focal length constant (e.g., 20mm on the small sensor and 20mm on the large sensor) and

B. keep the subject size in frame the same (i.e., you move so that the thing in the foreground is taking up the same amount of space in the photo, since the fields of view on the two cameras is different), that

C. The perspective compression between the two will be the same, (because they're using the same focal length lens and you're claiming that that's what's causing the perspective compression).

Let me know if you disagree with any of those points.
>>
>>3750163
Hmm I wouldn’t describe it as things in the background looking closer.
>>
>>3750165
>Hmm I wouldn’t describe it as things in the background looking closer.
But in general, things placed in the frame forwards-to-backwards looking closer to each other than they do with a wider-angle lens, right?

If not, how would you describe it?
>>
>>3750172
Bro you’re asking me to describe the MF look.

It’s like asking me to describe a color.
>>
>>3750175
No, I'm asking you to describe perspective compression, which is what people are (inaccurately) ascribing the "MF look" to. You called it "compression", so I'm trying to nail down whether or not we're talking about the same thing.
>>
>>3750179
I mean you’re the one that needs to nail it down anon, I’m the one out shooting my MF cameras.
>>
>>3750175
>Can't just show a MF and 135 shot with equivalent focal length side by side and let people tell the difference
>Wants to insist that this shade of blue is different from another shade but cannot even demonstrate it or use simple words like "one is darker than the other"
This is why people think you're a bullshitter.
>>
>>3750184
If you wanna go out and make the comparison shots you’re welcome to, but you don’t own anything MF lol.
>>
>>3750185
Just a quick heads up, you're actually arguing with at least two people. I'm >>3750179 >>3750172 and >>3750163; you're responding to someone else.

So, I can't speak for him, but I own several medium format cameras and have been shooting them a lot recently. They do not, in fact, have some magical and immediately obvious look compared to my full frame digitals. I'm guessing if you think they do, you haven't shot medium format and 35mm side by side to actually compare--I have.

Not under scientific conditions; usually just 'cause I was using an FF digital camera as a light meter and the photo was a side effect. But the point is, they don't look that different in terms of measurable features. The film camera gives you that film look that's hard to achieve with digital, and the sharpness-with-shallow-DoF that I described way back in >>3748943 is a thing, but there's a persistent myth that it's because the longer focal length with the same field of view gives you telephoto compression with a wide field of view. And that's not a thing.
>>
>>3750190
Where are your comparison photos anon?
>>
File: P200807-6213.jpg (355 KB, 667x1000)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>3750196
Shooting expired Neopan 400 on a 645. Tried to match the digital shot as close as I could to the high-contrast look the neopan gave me.

The MF definitely gave me shallower depth of field since I think I had it at f/2 or 2.8 whereas the digital was at f/4, but the perspective is the same between the 80mm on 645 and the 50mm on full frame.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Shutter Speed1/160 sec
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Exposure ModeAuto
>>
File: P200807-000330640009.jpg (458 KB, 732x1000)
458 KB
458 KB JPG
>>3750196
>>3750198

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
>>
>>3750198
>>3750199
Literally can’t see shit captain
>>
>>3750200
Okay, well, post a comparison photo you've taken on both MF and smaller format where you can see a clear and obvious perspective difference despite the two cameras having the same field of view and despite them being shot from the same place. I can try shooting a more controlled comparison tomorrow, but it'll take a while for me to get it developed and this argument will hopefully have fallen off the edge by then.
>>
>>3750202
Lol I’m sure you can keep it going AC, you’re behind every argument on this board.
>>
>>3750203
> you’re behind every argument on this board.
I think you're misattributing some anons to me. I've mostly just been keeping to the Leica and portrait threads lately. I have replies in, like, three other threads on the board right now, but none of them are arguments.
>>
>>3750049
It doesn’t. Because you will focus closer for the same subject on 50mm on MF, closer focus = DoF becomes thinner.

If you have the same physical aperture on two focal length equivalents then it’ll be the same with same framing. But MF will have a wider DoF most of the time because the widest physical aperture is normally smaller. Eg 80mm f/4 won’t be as shallow as 50mm f/2.

Or on 6x7cm. 180mm 4.5 won’t be as shallow as 85mm 1.8. 110mm 2.8 on 6x7cm would be shallow than most 50mm lenses.

DoF on 35mm is already thin enough.
>>
>>3750163
No

If you use the same focal length, and same camera to subject distance, then the compression will stay the same.

Anything else and it will change.
>>
>>3750322
Okay, so you're saying that if you have two cameras with

1. Vastly different format sizes (e.g., full frame and 1/2.3")
2. Vastly different focal lengths (e.g., 28mm vs. 5mm)
3. The same field of view (i.e., the 28mm and the 5mm are equivalent focal lengths on their respective formats)
4. The same subject-to-camera distance

Then they will have vastly different perspective compression. Correct?
>>
>>3750202
You’re telling me that 2 different formats will look exactly the same with different aspect ratios and different length lenses lmao big brain trips here.
>>
>>3750457
Nobody is saying that. They are calling out the fact that you claim *equivalent* focal lengths on different cameras have different levels of compression and distortion. Why can't you just post an objective comparison?
>>
>>3750457
>will look exactly the same
Not exactly the same. Obviously if you have different aspect ratios, you have different aspect ratios. And the larger format is going to give you a lot of advantages in terms of sharpness, tonality, etc, as I've said multiple times in the thread.

All we're saying is that the PERSPECTIVE COMPRESSION/DISTORTION between those two cases will be the same because the lenses have the same field of view on their respective formats and the subject-to-camera distance is the same.

I am doing my best to write these things out cleanly and clearly so we can all at least agree what we're talking about. Stop making up strawmen to argue against instead.
>>
>>3750475
Again, an objective comparison that 35mm and MF look the same? Sorry I can’t achieve that for you lol. Have a pic of my bed instead.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width1497
Image Height1189
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3750487
>I can't prove what I'm talking about so I'll just strawman you instead
This is proof of your concession. Thanks.
>>
>>3750453
They will have vastly different dof compression, yes.
>>
>>3750491
Do you know what a strawman is? Can you point it out in that post?
>>
>>3750491
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat brainiac
>>
>>3750487
Looks pretty gay.
>>
>>3750494
"dof compression" isn't a thing. Can you explain what you mean by that made-up term? Or at least link to somewhere on the web that uses it?
>>
>>3750498
Some of us live with girls anon. Also the bedframe came with the room as this is a corporate condo.
>>
ok so there is such a thing as mf look. what mf camera/lens is the most redpilled one??

Looks like the price of the Pentax 67 with 105mm 2.4 has skyrocketed in the last year, probably because of Youtubers. :(((.

want to shoot 67, 66 also looks good but square format is very intimidating to compose in. in 35mm i usually shoot 50mm and wider. How much does lens matter???
>>
>>3750516

It’s still the RZ67 imho. You can get one with whatever focal length you want for around 1k. Don’t let people bully you into thinking that the 110 is the best lens on that system, they’re all great. The revolving back is super clutch for verticals and the viewfinder is second to none. If you don’t want the weight just shoot 645 imho.
>>
>>3750516

Oh and all modern medium format glass absolutely blows the doors off of any smaller format just by virtue of sensor size. I have a preference for the accurate whites of mamiya glass but that’s just me...
>>
>>3750501
Oh, I've lived with the same woman for 11 years. My bed never looked like that. A good relationship is built on mutual respect, my G.
>>
>>3750525
Lotta implying here my G, my shit looks way nicer than yours lol.
>>
>>3750496
It's when you purposefully misrepresent an argument and make it easier to defeat. In your case what you're doing is insisting we've said MF looks identical to smaller sizes but we are not. We are asking you to demonstrate proof of a specific claim you made.
>>
>>3750521
>110 is the best lens on that system
I'd argue it's the best all around and starter lens. Especially if you're running and gunning or doing on location handheld shots. I have the 180 too but it's a cunt to carry around and handhold.

I would like to get something a little wider though. Not sure which lens i'd dip into. Maybe the 65 f4
>>
wolud you rather get a rb67 and sekor 90mm 3.8 or save up for a pentax 67 and 105 2.4

some people online dont seem to like the rb67 or that lens very much
>>
>>3750555
How lazy are you? I went with the RZ over the RB because i didn't want to be assed with a multi stage ritual just to cock and advance film. Downside is now i have electrical parts that can fail.

I see a lot of people fucking up the mirror lock up on accident. So besides image quality, what aspects of the camera are you willing to work with
>>
>>3750534
>my corporate condo that my girlfriend has total control over looks nicer than yours man!
cool. however will i recover?
>>
>>3750542
You’re more than welcome to prove the claim that you’re asserting, not gonna go die on that hill for you lol.

>>3750545
Oh I agree, I own the 110 and use it a ton, I’m just saying don’t feel like the reason to buy into the RZ system is for that lens, which a lot of people like to imply. You should 1000% get the 65 if you’re even considering it. I loveije and they’re such a steal, I think I paid $300 for mine.

>>3750564
Would definitely take the electric trade off for a simple shooting experience.
>>
>>3750571
I think the logical answer would be to post a pic of the bedroom that you decorated, but we both know your little world is much too sad to show anyone.
>>
>>3750545
>>3748983
This the 65 actually, probably at 5.6 or 8
>>
>>3750580
Do you really think you're capable of saying "oh, yeah, cool, nice bedroom" at this point? You're already on the defensive. There is no bedroom on the planet I could post that you wouldn't have some nitpicky criticism of, because you're just that kind of person. You take everything as a challenge, and you take every sling and arrow personally.

Imagine, all of this because you have some gay little frills on your pillowcase.
>>
i cant imagin the RB's handling inconveniences are significant when already going through the trouble to hauling around a comically large mf camera instead of a 35mm. but i have never done it

how much worse are the 67RB's lenses vs similar on other systems
>>
>>3750585
watch this redditor >>3750580 reply with something like "are you mad? still waiting for you to post a photo..." any evidence you post he will dismiss as pathetic and self-evidently bad
>>
>>3750585
You could just say you’re too embarrassed in your girls aesthetic anon.
>>
>>3750595
A real human bean response would have been "yeah, haha, pretty gay. but i gotta let my girlfriend pick the pillow cases if i want to share the bed with her, so pick your battles, you know?"

Instead it was "HAHA NOPHOTO NOGIRL LARPER I BET YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A BED"
>>
>>3750604
Lol senpai I had a $5000 relocation credit given to me on the corporate card and let her run wild with it because I love her and like her taste.
>>
>>3750564
>i didn't want to be assed with a multi stage ritual just to cock and advance film. Downside is now i have electrical parts that can fail.
Having shot a *lot* of accidental double-frames on my RB, I'd say yeah, go with the camera that doesn't make advancing the film and re-cocking the shutter two different steps.

(In theory, the RB is supposed to prevent you from taking a double exposure unless you've specifically enabled double exposures, but my RB is slightly broken in that regard and I don't use it enough to justify buying a replacement for the broken part)

>>3750592
>i cant imagin the RB's handling inconveniences are significant when already going through the trouble to hauling around a comically large mf camera instead of a 35mm
I definitely use my RB less than my m645 or Kiev, and it's probably equally down to handling as it is weight.
>>
>>3750607
I'm glad you found happiness, gaylord.

(p.s. less is more, next time leave out "corporate card" and "5000", it makes you look insecure in your accomplishments)
>>
>>3750618
3k/5k is industry standard relocation credit for financial principles learn life kid.
>>
>>3750621
lmao, if it's standard, why even mention it? If it literally goes without saying, then why say it?
>>
>>3750630
Nice to know the little logistics of my life have me living literally and figuratively rent free lol.
>>
>>3750621
>
there's a Sam hyde rant about people like this, how poor people unknowingly reveal their own ignorance by having a weird fixation on brands or technical details that rich people do not think twice about, so when it gets brought up in conversation it instantly outs the poor as being weak and puts them in a kind of pitiable, compromised position, often without them realizing
>>
>>3750636
My favorite part is him using the word accomplishments lel
>>
>>3750633
lol, all I did was call your pillows gay and you launched into a two hour defensive. There's thin skin, and then there's whatever medical condition you have.

But yeah, you're the one who's winning.
>>
>>3750641
Me describing basic details about my life probably sounds defensive to someone in your position.
>>
>>3750645
Taking seven or eight posts to do that while insinuating that I'm poor, don't have a girlfriend and am afraid to take a picture of my bed it does sound quite defensive.

The sad thing is that you're probably too ingrained in this pattern of thought at this point to ever break free from it. You're going to be fifty on the golf course bragging about how you get to fuck your wife in the ass because that's true love when an associate (not a friend, I doubt you have many real friends) makes an off-comment about your limp wrist swing. Enjoy your frilly pillows, my guy.
>>
>>3750647
Wow even more implications I’m shocked.
>>
>>3750573
>You're more than welcome to prove me wrong after I made a claim without backing it up
Okay, here it is: you're wrong.
>>
https://youtu.be/WXdOOwR5N8A

here is what 4chan would be like in a model shoot
>>
>>3750681
He seems chill and genuine desu

Can you say the same about yourself? Can you put yourself out there?
>>
>>3750681
This guys pretty chill, unlike (vuhlandez?) Dude literally cried because canon didn't make a statement for BLM 5 minutes after floyd died. Changes camera brands to whatever is fotm, and cried for fuji to make him an x photog before he even bought his fuji.
>>
File: IMG_20201030_093247488.jpg (572 KB, 4000x3000)
572 KB
572 KB JPG
>>3748815
About to debunk this. Does anyone have anything in particular the want to see before I start?

6x7 Medium format: 140mm (35 FOV)
Full frame: 70mm-210mm (34.2-11.8 FOV)
APSC: 75mm-300mm (21.2-5.4 FOV) 18mm-55mm (76-28.7 FOV)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera Modelmoto z3
Camera Softwaremessi_verizon-user 9 PDXS29.84-51-11-5 c69ad release-keys
Sensing MethodUnknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:30 09:32:47
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating230
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness0.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.75 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height3000
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3751851
Go ahead. It's pretty pointless, though. Someone did the same few years ago. He posted conclusive proof that there's nothing to it. But two weeks later board was back to it. Gearfagging is a terminal illness.
>>
>>3751851
If you want to put in the effort, go ahead.
Try and get background that illustrates well what you're trying to show; even though >>3750199 and >>3750198 already showed everything that needed to be shown, the only answer to it was that you can't see shit because the background is too busy/the photo has to much other stuff going on I assume.
>>
File: IMG_20201030_103129676.jpg (170 KB, 1770x2360)
170 KB
170 KB JPG
>>3751862
Yeah I know, just bored at my house
>>3751865
This is my current composure
>>
>>3748815
>I call BS on "tonality" They say that for the same field of view vs MF and FF, because there is more space on the MF cam to make the tonal transition, the range of tones is represented better. In signal processing this is like increasing the spatial sampling rate of the scene. IMO I can't see how that helps for anything except small details.
Wrong.
With medium format you have more film. More grains.

If you have 100 grains of film trying to capture 40 lines, you're going to have grain interfering with the original signal.
If you have 200 grains of film trying to capture 40 lines, you're going to have more original signal compared to the grain vs the same image captured on 100 grains.
"capture quality" is identical between the same types of film though. This is something people misunderstand. if you project those 40 lines onto 100 grains worth of film area in a frame of medium format, you're going to get the same quality as if you projected those 40 lines over the space of 100 grains on a smaller format.

Basically if you reverse the crop factor and do the math necessary you can use the same focal length lenses on medium format to capture the same exact image as you get on 35mm, but you'll also have extra room to play with in terms of framing/cropping in post. There's nothing magic about medium format it's simply bigger, and the grain structure scale linearly.

6x9 is ~5x (~2.25x height+width) the size. That's 5x less relative grain compared to 35mm if you use the right lenses to fill the frame the same way across both formats. That's why medium format is better. That's it. These are the facts. If you wanna be a brainlet just assume medium format practically makes your film grain finer each time you increase size. Forget about what any other film faggot autist might say about any memes based on their ideological opinion and feelings using bullshit terms.
>>
>>3751862
>>3751865
Actually, I think the problem is that no one seems to know what they're arguing over in this thread.

There's one side, who is arguing that perspsective compression stays the same regardless of focal length (which is true).

There's the other side that's saying something entirely different and unrelated, which is that medium format "compresses" the depth of field transition (or just has more shallow DOF), which is also true.

Both sides are right and are arguing about totally different things. It's madness.
>>
>>3751940
There’s one side arguing that format size doesn’t change how an image looks. There’s another side that owns cameras.
>>
>>3750198
>>3750199
Where do you meet hairy chicks like this?
>>
>>3752415
>There’s one side arguing that format size doesn’t change how an image looks. There’s another side that owns cameras.
This is a good illustration of what fucking cuck was saying, because no, none of us are arguing that MF looks exactly the same as smaller formats. We're just arguing that the reason for the difference in appearance isn't perspective.

Plus, I'd wager we all own medium format cameras.
>>
>>3752443
No no there’s a bunch of people on here who genuinely believe you can accomplish the same look on a smaller format
>>
>>3752491
Examples?
>>
File: MF look1.jpg (3.79 MB, 7493x3858)
3.79 MB
3.79 MB JPG
>>3751851
Okay I've got the pics

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V600
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:31 14:04:58
ISO Speed Rating0
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: MF look2.jpg (4.36 MB, 7510x5462)
4.36 MB
4.36 MB JPG
>>3752497
I forgot the APS-C

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V600
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:31 14:18:13
ISO Speed Rating0
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3752495
>>3748996
ez mode
>>
>>3752498
You know you just proved yourself wrong?
>>
File: overlayed.jpg (269 KB, 4000x3000)
269 KB
269 KB JPG
>>3752519
What do you mean? I understand it's all about the distance between the subject and camera. Sensor size and lenses affect the fov.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera Modelmoto z3
Camera Softwaremessi_verizon-user 9 PDXS29.84-51-11-5 c69ad release-keys
Sensing MethodUnknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:31 15:19:33
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating66
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Brightness2.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.75 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height3000
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3752522
You said that theres no „mf look”, and that you’re about to debunk that shit, but clearly you can see the difference between 67 and 35mm, right?
>>
>>3752527
The ESL is strong with this one. This is probably why this thread has gone to 180 posts over a pretty simple and obvious concept.

The motherfucker you're responding to is VERY strongly in favor of the "YES THERE IS A MF LOOK, IT HAS SHALLOWER DEPTH OF FIELD" camp.
>>
>>3752528
Wait one fucking second
>>
>>3752528
Ive read the op one more time, and if you want to debunk that post youre in favor of “no, muh apsc is as good as lf, i just need wider lenses”
>>
>>3752511
Asking you to explain what you thought was the part of those photos that wasn't replicable on 35mm is not the same as saying there's nothing about those photos that isn't replicable on 35mm.
>>
>>3748849
>>3748851
>>3748853
Good posts. Finally someone using their brain. Your effort is appreciated.
>>
>>3752657
There there anon, just go enjoy your 35mm camera, no one is gonna take it away from you.
>>
File: i8gZDzp.jpg (149 KB, 1500x1202)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>3751937
Or to put simply

Capture more signal, have better signal to noise ratio.

It boggles my mind that people can look at pic related, a 50mm equivalent lens at f4, and say mf look isn't real, y'all fucking blind.
>>
>>3752795
4/10 nice attempt
>>
File: ai6ncwydowv51.jpg (85 KB, 640x812)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>3752795
>Mamiya RB67 / 90mm f3.8 / Portra 400
Could be Flickr tier FF digital
Vs.
Pentax 67, Takumar 90mm/2.8, Kodak Portra 400
On the other hand, I couldn't do this on FF.
So I agree, but there's clearly degrees of separation.
>>
>>3752903
This is great example of The Look (tm)
>>
Even bitch tier 645 is instantly recognisable as mf
>>
>>3753369
Of course it looks like MF if you tell us it's MF.
Maybe next time call it fast APS-C with a filmy editing. Then cry when no one spots the ruse and falls for the “APS-C look”.
>>
>>3753371
The fact I can scroll through ig and instantly spot an mf shot, and have my suspicions confirmed by the tags, but you still struggle to tell if it could be on crop says more about you than it does me.

I guess you're pretty new to photography, at the very least never owned a mf camera?
>>
File: Clipboard.jpg (1.22 MB, 1200x2357)
1.22 MB
1.22 MB JPG
>>3749313
>perspective differences are a function of camera-to-subject distance
absolutely correct!
here is from top to bottom:
1.mobile phone close up
2.90mm on apsc
3.mobile phone same position (not 100%) as camera + crop

so yeah perspective compression is only a function of camera to subject distance
>>
>>3753384
based mythbusting anon
that said, there's a caveat: as much as "telephoto compression" is bullshit because it's the perspective doing the compression, the magnification allows the shooter to make use of it for great visual effects
>>
>>3753384
>>3753388
>When you reply to yourself and it's immediately obvious because you used no capital letters, no full stops and used colons in both posts.

Fucking cringe. No wonder it's from a sensorlet.
>>
>>3753469
>I'm not going to address his actual argument, though, because I'm just here to troll and don't actually have any idea how cameras work.
>>
>>3753469
heh, what a moron
>>
>>3753547
Fine, i'll address "his" "argument"

No one has ever argued that perspective distortion isn't due to camera to subject distance.

You fucking clown.
>>
>>3753573
>No one has ever argued that perspective distortion isn't due to camera to subject distance.

From this thread:
>>3748815
> The perspective difference might be a real thing

>>3749119
>Hey if you don’t think compression is a thing then that’s your truth anon.

>>3749136
>So you’re saying if I adapt an 80mm medium format lens to a smaller sensor it becomes a 50? Cool.
(A sarcastic reply to my post explaining how the perspective is based on subject-to-camera distance rather than focal length)

>>3749317
> so it sounds like for the same field of view, medium format will exaggerate differences in depth

>>3749339
>Oh dope so I don’t need any of my portrait lenses anymore I can just crop from a wide angle.
(Another sarcastic reply from someone who doesn't believe that the telephoto compression of a portrait lens comes from you standing a little further back from your subject)

>>3750066
> When you want the same FOV and subject size in the frame MF will have more compression

>>3750322
>If you use the same focal length, and same camera to subject distance, then the compression will stay the same.
(arguably; technically true, but the perspective compression will seem different because there's so much else in the frame on the larger format. They'll be the same if you crop)
>>
>>3753620
>not understanding the difference between dof compression and perspective distortion

>thinking cropping a tiny portion from a larger image is a viable option

You chin dribbling retard.
>>
>>3753620
>they'll be the same if you crop

just lmao
>>
>>3753371
Only you would fall for that tho

>>3753369
I like that photog he really makes 645 work. And on ektar and foma.
>>
>>3753629
>dof compression
Yeah, but what about the shutter speed perspicacity?

See, I can make up terms and pretend like I've won the argument, too.
>>
>>3753826
>Not understanding self explanatory terms

>Thinking focal length and subject to camera distance doesn't affect the rate and absolutes of dof falloff.

I bet you shoot fuji
>>
>>3753826
>I have lost, the post
>>
>>3753847
>I bet you shoot fuji
Oh, okay, you're just straight up trolling. I thought you might just be an idiot, but it's been a bad faith discussion this whole time.
>>
>>3753883
>Being this triggered because I read you like a pamphlet

>Thinking it's a "bad faith" argument to associate dumb photographers that don't know shit with a brand that appeals to dumb photographers that don't know shit

Lmao, what does it feel like to be cucked by me?
>>
so if im understanding this right... sounds like there is no difference??

someone please provide a tldr, thanks
>>
>>3754440
Do mobile phone pictures look different to pics from full frame cameras to you?
>>
>>3754440
mf has shallower dof and less noise
That's literally all there is.
>>
>>3755437
So you think mobile phone photos in good light and not focused on anything close look the same as full frame camera photos?
>>
>>3755457
Well, when viewed at the target size, for the most part yes.
>>
>>3755459
nigga you blind
>>
>>3755457
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&v=eMMl_B4et4Y
>>
>>3755437
>Shallower DOF

Just lmao
>>
>>3755534
>Even if I downsized the images heavily people still recognised the mft camera as being the worst.

crazy.
>>
>>3749436
Pentacon Six TL has TTL metering, or you can get a pentaprism with TTL metering as an accesory. And it is actually affordable since it is Kraut Space Magic.
>>
>>3754440
Correct. It's dumb gearfags obsessing over gear instead of shooting.
>>
File: 124323.jpg (234 KB, 1871x733)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
>B-but muh dynamic range
>>
>>3756044
>Fuji trying to cheat reviews, again, because they can't compare with FF cameras and it tears them, and Fuji users up inside.

Lmao.
>>
>>3756061
even if this bullshit is true there is still no much improvement in FF dynamic range in most often used ISO range
>>
>>3756065
There's always going to be a whole extra stop improvement on average from sensors of the same generation.

Or, in absolute terms, FF will always be twice as good, because it will always gather twice as much light and therefore have twice the signal to noise ratio.

This is really basic electronic engineering, only pride and stupidity would stop someone from accepting it.
>>
>>3756061
so DxOMark can't properly measure camera dynamic range?
>>
File: 8943uf.jpg (143 KB, 649x696)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3756066
>noise ratio
hmm...
>>
>>3756071
>Using non scale normalised jpegs

Pathetic

>>3756067
Iso is arbitrary.
Understand this sentence before replying.
>>
>>3756073
ye but higher noise on FF is fucking obvious
even on jpg
>>
all in all
bigger the sensor, bigger the meme
>>
>>3756073
>Using non scale
you can download original pics
and cry
>>
>>3755537
I know it's technically not that but I don't care. Go sperg somewhere else anon.
>>
>anon shrekposts a really basic troll question
>230 post thread ensues with no consensus
/p/ really knows their shit
>>
>>3756217
spergs gonna sperg
>>
File: yikes.jpg (27 KB, 320x317)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>3756217
I really miss this meme. I loved how ass blasted people would get
>>
bump cause I really wanna see more people sperg out
>>
>>3756936
>Im nostalgic about memes
your generation is broken mentally lol, back in my day we made new memes every few weeks and forgot all about the old cringe.
>>
bump
>>
>>3748815
This is the MF look
>>3761607
>>
bump this needs to be discussed further
>>
>>3762275
then add to the discussion?
>>
>>3762276
no I just want to to see /p/haggots sperg out about it
>>
bump i wish someone who knew wtf they were talking about would respond.

i suspect that for a fixed composition (for instance, "subject fills the frame from the waist up") there is going to be a difference in how big objects in the background will appear relative to the foreground
>>
>>3764955
distance to subject and distance of background. also bait thread now
>>
Could the Fuji MF digital camera (50mp) version be the endgame camera in the next decade or so? Assuming price will fall appropriately.
>>
>>3767849
No, because it's barely larger than mf and no where near 645 which was considered the crop babby filmlet camera format.

The jump in quality from crop to FF is nearly twice as much as the jump from FF to Fuji crop mf.

Phase one do an ok sized mf camera and back.
>>
>>3767875
i can't wait for digi6x7



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.