Is medium format just a meme to get people to spend more money?

>>3131928
It's a meme on digital, but why rock the boat.

>>3131928
Leaf shutter lenses are pretty neat for doing outdoor flash photography.

But otherwise a meme, yes.

File: captain T-Bone kickin' it with Candice Swanepoel.jpg (101KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x640px

it's pretty cheap though

>>3131957
Why ?

>>3131978
Because of much higher sync speed compared to curtain shutters.

muh dynamic range
muh higher megapixels
muh larger sensor

>>3132021
Literally nothing gained compared to a Nikon d810 or Sony a7rii.

The large sensor just rapes battery life and requires more light to get the same dof as APSC of 35mm

Medium format digital is a meme

>>3131928
I feel like I'm missing something by giving a serious answer, but it's the law of diminishing returns. You pay an extra 1000% for 10% quality increase. But, if you're shooting for a Company like Samsung etc., you just bill them for renting the Camera. When spending literally millions (if not billions) on advertising, a Photographer charging them for a $500 rental Fee (or, just charging incredible amounts by the Hour regardless.) then cost doesn't matter quite as much as it would to a Basement-dwelling "Photographer" who works a minimum wage Job.

>>3132042
That is true.
But the reality is the file size of you are shooting digital. Then the MF is king in that respect for getting superior ultra large prints. For straight magazine ads then any fricking P&S camera will do. When it comes to Bill Boards, and images at that size then more is better.

>>3132030
>More light to get the same dof

Wut

Doesn't the larger image circle from their lenses already fix that issue by virtue?

>>3132058
DoF is inversely proportional to the square of the focal length. So given the same field of view between two formats and the same ISO, shutter speed, and aperture value, the larger format will have less DoF. So, to achieve the same DoF as the smaller format the lens must be stopped down more, all other settings remaining the same thus requiring more light to get the same DoF.

>>3131928
it's for pros who regularly make large prints, not to for photos you are just going to post online.

go ahead and make a poster-sized print (24x36 and larger) of your APSC snapshit vs. a mf photo and compare

https://fstoppers.com/originals/hasselblad-h6d-100c-comparison-review-full-frame-out-performs-medium-format-191500

>>3132204
>fstoppers
stopped reading right there

File: Scan003295.jpg (984KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 1000x1000px

>>3132042
I worked for "Supreme" one time, I charged them for a new camera and they paid for it. That's how most photographers get their gear, they charge it to the company that hires them.

>>3132200
I saw up close a 2 feet high and 8 feet wide banner from an Iphone 7 camera and the quality was 9/10. Not that I disagree with you, I'm just saying.

>>3131928
The level of detail you get with a medium format 100MP sensor is unparalleled (the lenses also have a lot to do with it). DSLR lenses have a limit.

Check for samples
hasselblad com/inspiration/gallery/sample-image-downloads

P.S. The samples pics may freeze your computer.
>Pic shot with a Bronica SQ-AI

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:02:06 13:48:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

File: 0979_hasselblad_vs_bronica.jpg (99KB, 615x660px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 615x660px

>>3131928

For consumer bodies? Fuck no.

The newest medium format body (Fuji GFX) is not only massive compared to other medium format cameras, but has a welded sensor (That isn't even 6x6!) that produces images comparable to the a7rII.

At this time it isn't worth it. Maybe in 5 years.

>>3131928
just shoot film faggot

File: Capture4.jpg (96KB, 734x1100px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 734x1100px

Depends on where your pictures end up on. All of my pictures end up on web or Facebook, where they are compressed to shit. So medium format makes no sense. However having more information and pixels to work with in postprocesing is an advantage, not big enough for me, but it may be big enough for others.
For someone who spends a lot of time crafting and photoshoping one master crafted image it makes sense. I played around with sony a7rII and fuji GFX raw files, and it seemed like i can push out more quality out of Fuji files, they were more flexible, and the end result was better. However its probably not worth the bother for 95% of photographers, when people look at instagram photos on their phones mostly.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	1
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3132435
>All of my pictures end up on web or Facebook,
why not kill yourself already?

>>3132030
>requires more light
Top kek. By your logic croped cameras need less light than FF cameras.

>>3132436
>The idea of putting my photos on the Internet where someone might see them and make fun of me fills me with terror, so I pretend there's some special virtue in only looking at them in print where the only other person who ever sees them is my mom when she comes down to the basement to clean up my empty Mountain Dew bottles.
Cool story, bro.

>>3132459
>Top kek. By your logic croped cameras need less light than FF cameras.

He said "Requires more light to get the same depth of field".

I.e., you'll need to use a smaller aperture (and thus require an increase in either ISO or shutter speed, or--as he said--shine more light into the scene) to get the same exposure with the same depth of field.

This is, in fact, true to some extent with full frame as well. You need to close down about a stop with equivalent field-of-view lenses to get the same depth of field as you would with an APS-C camera. The difference is that FF cameras vs. APS-C you also have the advantage that you've got about a stop better low-light ISO performance to compensate, so f/4 at ISO 800 on full frame looks about the same as f/2.8 at ISO 400 on crop.

Until VERY recently, this mitigating factor of ISO was not the case with medium format cameras. I.e., since the larger sensors were low-volume/high-price, you didn't get the same economies of scale for pouring a lot of research dollars into improved sensor technology at that end. People shooting MF tended to be dedicated landscape shooters on tripods and studio shooters with big studio lights, so it wasn't an issue, so ISO performance on MF was as bad or worse than ISO performance on APS-C. I seem to recall that the latest MF sensors can do as well as full frame, but even then, his logic still holds out:

Medium Format requires more light to get the same depth of field as smaller sensor cameras.

>>3132467
>all this neckbeard fanfic
holy moley projection batman.

>>3131978
You can get much faster flash sync speeds with a leaf shutter lens.
This lets you reduce the influence of the ambient (sun) light without impacting your flash power.

They use this a lot to make very dramatic looking outdoors shots.

>>3131928
What?? Do you even understand the purpose? There's a HUGE difference between medium format and 35mm. Hardly one between small format and crop sensor, but a big one between small and medium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

>>3131928
I paid 1.3k for my 35mm dslr without lens
I paid 250 for my medium format with lens

Explain yourself

>>3132030
>sony is better than M43 because M43 needs more light to take the same photo all M43 really has 2 stops higher ISO and 2 stops slower lenses


>Well sony is better than MF because can get a bigger dof with a smaller aperture on the sony also battery life


So, Sony's defense against MF is literally the same fucking defense M43 has against sony

>>3132590
I guess that's what you get when crop babies can finally afford to buy cheap full frames.

M43 is some cuckold shit

>>3132642
>thread about MF
>some guy who has a crush on a girl saw photos (shot on a pen f in jpg with the creative filter) of multiple olympus and panasonic users gang banging her

>>3132587
>I paid 1.3k for my 35mm dslr without lens
>I paid 250 for my medium format with lens
>Explain yourself

Medium format digital cameras are more expensive than medium format film cameras.

>>3132030

So what, you can just stop down more before diffraction because of the larger sensor. I suppose by your reasoning we should all be using micro four thirds and Chinese 0.95 lenses? Pathetic.

By the way. You obviously haven't heard of the Fuji 680. Amateur.

>>3132587
The cheapest MF digital cameras/backs are like $10,000

The think that costs a lot is the digital sensor or film.

>>3132676
>I suppose by your reasoning we should all be using micro four thirds and Chinese 0.95 lenses?


>implying that combo isn't fucking based

>>3132030
> requires more light to get the same dof as APSC
i sure got le trolled here

>>3132710
See >>3132480

>>3132153

This guy knows his shit

anyways I just chimed in to agree with it being a meme. Leaf shutters used to be useful for cutting the ambient light with flash but now we get the same results with HSS.

File: 1496833097388.png (309KB, 315x439px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 315x439px

>>3132480
BULLSHIT!

Exposition is given per unit area. The EV value is still the same regardless of the aperture.

I don't even know how the aperture and focal lenght affects the DOF. Try projecting building a pinhole camera sometime.

>>3131928
What is the point of the high waisted fishnet meme. Like it gets me hard cause it is so trashy, but is that the whole point of it?

>>3132764
>it gets me hard

>>3132760
>Exposition is given per unit area

... Do you mean exposure?

>The EV value is still the same regardless of the aperture

Yes, this is true. But that's not what we're talking about.

So, you've got the normal triangle of exposure variables. Shutter, Aperture, ISO. If you adjust one, you have to adjust one of the others (or change your actual light in the scene) to compensate.

The larger sensor means that a given aperture and field of view is going to give you shallower depth of field. So if you DON'T want shallower depth of field, you have to stop down your lens.

So shooting 35mm, 1/200th, ISO 100, f/2.8 on a crop camera ~=
Shooting 50mm, 1/100th, ISO 100, f/4 on full frame ~=
Shooting 80mm, 1/50th, ISO 100, f/5.6 on 645 medium format.

You could just shoot FF at 1/200th f/2.8 and the MF at 1/200th f/2.8, but your depth of field would be shallower on FF and way shallower on MF.

Going from crop to FF, you also have this option: 1/200th, ISO 200, f/4. That would give you the same DOF and same shutter speed (i.e., same level of motion blur), and it would even give you the same level of noise because FF sensors have less noise than crop sensors.

This does NOT hold true for medium format sensors, though. The ISO characteristics of medium format are more like crop than like full frame, usually, and only the best and most modern MF cameras can match FF for ISO noise.

So, if you want to hold these variables constant:
* Amount of noise in the photo
* Depth of Field
* Perspective
* Motion blur

then for medium format, you have to increase the light in the scene.

>>3132774
Why would you need to increase the light if the EV is the same?

>>3133236
Are you fucking trolling me right now?

>Why would you need to increase the light if the EV is the same?

Because you need to close down your aperture to get the same depth of field because of the larger sensor.

And you don't want to change your shutter speed because that affects motion blur.

And you don't want to increase your ISO because medium format cameras don't do as well at high ISOs as FF cameras do.

>>3133363
Nigga, what the fuck do you need the camera for in the first place? Are you bullshitting me?

Didn't you learn to multiply the crop factor to the aperture to have the aproximate DOF on FF?

>>3133601
>what the fuck do you need the camera for in the first place?

To... take pictures? Aren't we talking about taking pictures? Isn't this a photography board?

>Didn't you learn to multiply the crop factor to the aperture to have the approximate DOF on FF?

Yes. We all agree on this. So if you want to take the same picture on a medium format camera as you would take on a 35mm, you have to use a smaller aperture on the MF, and that decreases the amount of light hitting the focal plane. We're all together on this so far, right?

And if you narrow your aperture, that means you have to compensate for that narrowed aperture somewhere else, correct? So longer shutter speed, higher ISO, or add more light to the scene. Correct? Are you still with me on this one?

So, one stop down on the aperture => one stop up on shutter speed, one stop up on ISO, or one stop up on the actual light in the scene, right? Tell me at which point I lose you, because this stuff is all Photography 101 and if we're stumbling on one of these points, we need to clear it up before we can go to the slightly more complicated part which is the actual point of this argument.

So, the actual point of this argument. Comparing FF and MF:
1. If you want to keep the motion blur in the photo the same (i.e., same shutter speed)
2. And you want to keep the depth of field the same (i.e., smaller aperture on FF)
3. And you want to keep the amount of noise the same (i.e., the thing that's controlled by ISO)
4. Then you need to add more light to an equivalent scene for MF, because ISO 400 on MF is NOISIER than ISO400 on full frame. So if you're trying to keep noise constant, you're going to be shooting ISO200 on MF when you'd be shooting ISO 400 on FF (more or less)

Please tell me exactly where in this that I lost you.

>>3132774
>This does NOT hold true for medium format sensors, though. The ISO characteristics of medium format are more like crop than like full frame, usually, and only the best and most modern MF cameras can match FF for ISO noise.

Older MF cameras used CCD's which did better than CMOS at lower ISO's and worse at higher ISO's.
On those MF cameras ISO 200 and probably even ISO 400 looks better than ISO 100 on full frame (from the same era).

MF is better for portraiture, landscape and product photography.
FF is better for sports, journalism and wildlife.

Which is exactly what the top models of both are marketed at.

>>3133605
The images won't be the same because MF is bigger than FF and waaayyyy bigger than crop.

Also, fuck you and your shit.

>>3133675
The images WILL be about the same if you adjust focal lengths and apertures.

APS-C, 35mm, f/2.8
FF, 50mm, f/4
645, 80mm, f/5.6

Gives roughly the same pictures.

>>3133741
>comparing MF images to anything other than LF

>>3133756
>Failing to understand that I'm not making any argument other than a purely technical one about high ISO capabilities in the context of a larger sensor size's affect on depth of field.

>>3133669
>MF is better for portraiture, landscape and product photography.
>FF is better for sports, journalism and wildlife.
>Which is exactly what the top models of both are marketed at.

Agreed. I was not making any argument about the suitability or superiority of MF. If you follow the thread backwards, I was simply making a narrow technical argument that, yes, shooting with MF requires more light (or more noise, or more motion blur) to get the same photo.

Started with >>3132030
>The large sensor [...] requires more light to get the same dof as APSC [or] 35mm

And people replied to him (>>3132058, >>3132459) not understanding what he meant by that. So I've been explaining what that guy meant by that.

I personally DON'T agree with him that MF cameras are useless in a world with high end FF cameras, for exactly the reasons you're probably thinking of. Sometimes, you really do need that extra bit of pure raw image quality or resolution in a studio or landscape setting.

But as to the point he made that medium format requires more light to get the same image, that checks out.

>>3132378
SHE IS NOT IN FOCUS
Why would you post that as an example?