medium format vs DSLR 35mm

[blowupster]

(...)Seriously, why on Earth would anyone want to stop a 35mm format portrait lens down to f/11 (if I reads you correctly)?

To get more DOF !

In a 200x300px pictures, it's OK at 2.0. On 50x75cm not.
Even at 11 you have 3D effect if you blow up to 30x40cm, F 11 allows you to have the 2 eyes, hear sharp. It's important that cloths, jewels and harms are sharp for special orders.

 

[DMIMAGE]

Does a medium format camera produce square images?

 

[fotografz]

Does a medium format camera produce square images?

Ones with square sensors do. Ones with 645 type sensors are 4:3 ratio, but can be cropped to a square.

-Marc

 

[imageman]

I'm looking into Leica myself too, Hasselblad is awesome, but everything is big and heavy, not ideal for what I want.

I have been a Hasselblad user most of my life, but in the last 10 years I have switched to Leica for a number of reasons. The Leica delivers superb quality, speed of operation compared to Hasselblad, is lighter and more compact, less obtrusive in discreet situations, etc.

Last week, I took the Hasselblad kit 'out of mothballs' and ran some colour and B&W through it. Wow! Quality and excitement gushed at me from the darkroom after processing the films.

The advice I would offer you, with no knowledge of your finances, is get the Leica. Do NOT sell the Hasselblad. There is room in life for both and in fact they complement each other. As a photographer you need a kit of tools. Hasselblad and Leica are are just two of those (superb) tools.

 

[blowupster]

I have the chance to have a CFV-39 (since end 2009) and a M9-P (since july 2011) with top lenses (Cfi 100mm and 50mm Asph.). Last month in Japan I made the same picture with the Leica I made with the CFV-39 one year ago. Ok Leica is far lighter than Hasselblad and basic iso at 160asa at f1.4 is more confortable than 50 asa at f 2.0 however I really was surprised to compare at home on a true screen how the cfv-39 is really better.

 

[Fliger747]

I lugged my Hassys all over the Arctic for years and ended up with quite a number of prints in museum and private collections. When digital came along I went Canon and shoot most of the aerials and landscapes with the 5DII. Compared to the Hassys stuff shot on film, the Canon takes the edge in clarity and possibly resoltion. One shot printed 16x20, the remark of several was that the resolution was simply insane.

However, but, whatever.... I think that was mostly a function of all of the steps working with film entails. I do like the images as scanned with either the Epson or Nikon scanners but some clarity is lost in the process. I am considering going with the CFV50 and dragging the Hassys out again for some particular projects I have been working on.

As I discovered years ago working with Kodak Tech Pan a very fine resolving emulsion puts your technique on trial. I don't necessarily think that the now greater digital resolution is worse than film, it just shows quite well if our technique needs refinement.

Certainly digital offers one great advantage as I fly my plane with the door open, stick between my knees as I changed roll film......

Cheers. Tom

 

[Rolo]

I am considering going with the CFV50 and dragging the Hassys out again for some particular projects I have been working on.
Cheers. Tom

Tom, can you expand on that ? Why, and what you expect to gain ?

Just it was a surprising turn in your writing when you seemed satisfied with your Canon output.

Gary

 

[Fliger747]

Over the years I have had a personal project doing photography of Denali (Mt McKinley) from up (really) close. The photography has been quite well recieved by the local climbing community, one of the best compliments I recieved at a show from a group of mountaineers clustered around a print, reveling in the detail, "He even out Washburns Washburn".

As a former climber and current professional pilot, and daughter and her husband who know the mountain as well as anyone, I have something that Bradford Washburn did not have, proximity. Though Washburn produced many quite large prints from hisequipment, the tonality is often indifferent at best.

One of the advantages of digital over film for this type of photography is in the resolution of the texture of the snow. Grain of about any useable film really obliterates and covers up the texture and form of the snow. Medium and large format were always much better at this with film than 35 MM. Digital should excell for this type of project, and build upon the size advantage of the MF. For some subjects, pixels do matter, looking at prints from the 12 MP Canon 5D and the 21MP 5DII, of the high mountains, there is a difference!

For this type of aerial work, flying at high altitude with the door open the Blad is a good shape and quite handy with the pistol grip.

In Summer I go to all sorts of out of the way places (Super Cub lakes we call them, much higher than they are long.....). Nothing like poking about the mountains. lakes and streams with a Blad.... Just love the magnified image on the glass.

Tom

 

[najobskalf]

Pixels wanted

Now, a Canon 5D MkIII with a 30MP sensor and adequate noise control would be nice for me. I always found it difficult to focus my Hasselblads accurately and was delighted with the autofocus provided by Canon (not to mention the L-series lenses). However, I do miss the beautiful engineering of the V Hasselblads - obviously my admiration of these cameras was not for the right reasons. My Canon 5DII consistently gives me better results than I got from the Hasselblad.

 

[fotografz]

Ability to focus accurately is a different issue from image quality produced by any given camera.

I used a flip magnifier on my V cameras to achieve critical focus. Nothing is more accurate than that.

I process a huge number of Canon 5D images from photographers that shoot for me. The AF is great when it locks onto the intended area for critical focus ... however, it sometimes doesn't do that, and the images are then not so well focused ... the Canon 1DsMK-III and 1DMK-IV have better AF consistency.

In general, our Sony A900 has more consistently accurate auto focus than the 5D or 5D-MKII

The best auto-focusing Medium Format camera I've used to date is the H4D with True Focus using the rear TF button to focus with rather than the shutter button ... followed by the Leica S2 using the rear button to AF with.

-Marc