Canon FF/APS-H/C vs medium-format cameras for photos

[Jordan]

Lately, I've been interested in learning more about the differences with the currently Canon DSLR sensors and the sensors of medium-format cameras like the PhaseONE and Hasselblad types. The level of detail and depth-of-field I've seen with the latter are impressive. Here is one photographer who shoots primarily with the 1DSMKIII, but used a PhaseONE camera for his recent trip to Indonesia and the results are STUNNING!http://www.joeyl.com/


I know the costs are insane to change over to medium-format, and most wouldn't want to switch over but rather keep the Canon equipment too. Anyone have any experience with these cameras or know the comparisons better than me? Any input would be appreciated!

[peety3]

Medium format usually has frame rates in the spf range, not fps. File sizes are pushing 6-7 files/GB. I'd hazard a guess that if your wallet can handle it and you do more thinking about your shot than shooting your shots, you'd like MF.

[Daniel Browning]

The level of detail and depth-of-field I've seen with the latter are impressive.


Often you can achieve the same depth of field with Canon as you can with MF -- sometimes Canon is actually thinner. That is because MF lenses are usually only f/2.8 or f/4 while Canon has f/1.2 and f/1.4. As for detail, I think that is partly due to having higher MTF (usually from lower spatial frequency of larger sensor area, though lens design is the primary factor), but there is another important factor: MF have no anti-aliasing filter. Many people like the "sharp" or "detailed" look of aliased images, while others find that the same image is riddled with disturbing aliasing artifacts. Canon prefers to use an anti-alias filter to avoid the artifacts at the cost of reduced contrast.


If you need more than 20 MP or higher lens contrast at a given DOF (and stitching wont do the trick), then I think MF is the right choice. For everything else, I think it's a waste.

[Jon Ruyle]

Hi Daniel!



The level of detail and depth-of-field I've seen
with the latter are impressive. Here is one photographer who shoots
primarily with the 1DSMKIII, but used a PhaseONE camera for his recent
trip to Indonesia and the results are
STUNNING!http://www.joeyl.com/


Those are absolutely incredible.


To be honest, though, if you told me those were taken with a 5DII I would have believed you. Am I dumb? I'm also quite curious what the advantages of MF are, when scaled down to low resolution More contrast, as Daniel pointed out. More dynamic range probably. Maybe advantages in other metrics. But in those pics, are any of these differences demonstrated?



Often you can achieve the same depth of field with Canon as you can with MF -- sometimes Canon is actually thinner.


I agree that getting a thin DOF (or working well in low light for that matter) are not good reasons to go MF, just because when you pair with MF lenses you get a package whose effective f number is actually slower than what you can get with 36mm. (If you find MF lenses much faster than f/2, I shall stand corrected on this point... I haven't seen, but then I haven't really looked) MF, generally, seems to have a lot less versatility (by that I mean there is less available stuff)


Plus MF cameras I've looked at don't have high ISO. I guess they figure, you want high ISO, but a crummy small format thing.



If you need more than 20 MP


Come on. Even my cheapo disposable canon has more than 20 MP.

[Keith B]

My two cents is save thousands, buy a 5DmkII and the 85 1.2II and the IQ you will get will make you forget about medium format.


There are tons of big name portrait and fashion photographers using either 1DsIIIs or 5DIIs (usually the 5DII) for the majority of there work. The lenses I see listed most often are the 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L and the 200 2.0L.

[Jon Ruyle]

My two cents is save thousands, buy a 5DmkII and the 85 1.2II and the IQ you will get will make you forget about medium format.


Oh, yeah- that's what I was *trying* to say. :)

[Keith B]

My two cents is save thousands, buy a 5DmkII and the 85 1.2II and the IQ you will get will make you forget about medium format.


Oh, yeah- that's what I was *trying* to say. :)









Yeah that is what I got from it. I was just concurring.


I just realize a short time ago (I'm slow), the FOV conversion between 36mm and Medium Format is 1.6 also. Which you'd also have to factor in when comparing the DOF. The FOV on a MF 80 is similar to a 50 on the 36mm, so the MF has the perspective of a 50 with the DOF of an 80, then a MF 80 f/2.8 is like a 36mm 50 f/1.8. Obviously Canon has faster lenses than f/1.8.

[Jordan]

Hey, thanks everyone for the input! Yeah I didn't realize about the depth-of-field thing. So, is that why when I use my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM on my 7D or 50D, the DOF doesn't look as nice and as thin as when I've seen others take photos with theirs, presumably with a FF camera? I really want to ditch at LEAST one of my 1.6x bodies, if not both, and get FF ones. I was just interested in learning a bit more about medium-format, as it intrigues me. Seems EXTREMELY expensive though! Sheesh!

[Keith B]

I really want to ditch at LEAST one of my 1.6x bodies, if not both, and get FF ones.






I'd hang onto the 7D if you can. It is nice to have a crop camera too. Especially one as great as the 7D.


It doesn't see nearly as much action as my 5DII but it is a great sports and second camera.

[Keith B]

Hey, thanks everyone for the input! Yeah I didn't realize about the depth-of-field thing. So, is that why when I use my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM on my 7D or 50D, the DOF doesn't look as nice and as thin as when I've seen others take photos with theirs, presumably with a FF camera?






Not necessarily. Lets say you are shooting with your 7D with 70-200 set at 125mm and f/2.8 and I'm right next to you with my 5DII same lens and aperture but I'm shooting at 200mm to achieve the same FOV. My DOF is going to be shallower with a more diffused background due to the compression advantage of the longer focal length. Your shot will have the appearance of a FF image shot at 200mm @ f/4.5.

[Jordan]

Well I see you're in love with the 85 L, as am I. I've rented it a few times with my 7D and always had amazing results. I'm curious, I know it's not longer on a FF, but is the DOF nicer?


Also, I don't plan to get rid of my 7D, UNLESS it's for a 1DsMKIII or something. Otherwise, ideally, I'd have my 7D and a 5DMkII. That's my goal! It's very hard to sell equipment here in France though :(

[Jon Ruyle]

but is the DOF nicer?


If by "nicer" you mean, super anorexic thin, then yes. [:)]


Really, though, all you DOF freaks just need to get an MP-E 65. Narrowest DOF of any canon lens. (Actually I'd be hard pressed to think of any camrea / lens combination in the Universe that has a narrower DOF)

[Jordan]

I don't really want any sort of INSANE DOF, but really the detail is another thing... and the dynamic-range. Really turns me on ;) haha!


Ugh... I just need to get a FF camera because noise is the biggest problem right now... well... that and learn to use lighting better.

[Keith B]

Well I see you're in love with the 85 L, as am I. I've rented it a few times with my 7D and always had amazing results. I'm curious, I know it's not longer on a FF, but is the DOF nicer?





Yes! I am definitely in love with the 85 L. The portrait shots I have taken with it remind me of MF shots. My new favorite thing is shooting wide apertures with strobes. I love the dreaminess of it. When shooting at smaller f/stops the detail is amazing. IMO it truly rivals MF shots I've seen.


The DOF is very shallow. At the 3' mfd and f/1.2 you can completely lose the subjects nose when the eyes are in focus.

[Jordan]

Hmm... well, though I've used the 85 1.2 numerous times, it's always been on 1.6x bodies... I'll have to try it on a FF and see how I like it! :)


Your shots with the 85L I saw on another post didn't load... were the links dead?

[Keith B]

Hmm... well, though I've used the 85 1.2 numerous times, it's always been on 1.6x bodies... I'll have to try it on a FF and see how I like it! :)


Your shots with the 85L I saw on another post didn't load... were the links dead?






Some of them were of clients so I only put them up for a short time. I don't want to upset anyone that is helping pay my bills.


Here is one I shot of a friend who had a mohawk for the first time in his life and wanted to commemorate it. It is gone now.


I shot this at 1.4 to get a little more DOF.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.81/_5F00_MG_5F00_1059alt2xs.jpg

[Jordan]

Wow, that's a really nice portrait! He's quite happy with it, I'm sure! :)


Thanks for showing me an example! Really, I just need to control light much better. I think that's my number one problem.

[Keith B]

Wow, that's a really nice portrait! He's quite happy with it, I'm sure! :)


Thanks for showing me an example! Really, I just need to control light much better. I think that's my number one problem.






Thanks Jordan!


I've used the 85 1.2 on my 7D for some events. The DOF is easier to control since you'll have to back up some to get similar crop as FF.