Full Frame or Medium Format?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
I don't understand that. If the FF mode is 45Mp and if that is the same number of megapixels as the R5, then their pixel sizes are the same.
-
Macro_Cosmos
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Ok let's see, the GFX50R's sensor is 44x33mm, 51MP. Assume FF is 36x24mm.
So, 11/9 and 11/8 times FF.
51 divided by these 2, so just shy of 31MP. That's around an EOS R's sensor size. Conventional FF low resolution sensors are 24MP. 36MP used to be high, but 45 is the new 36.
Not sure about the eyeballs analogy, did you get that from Ken Wheeler? Do be careful, while lots of his stuff are theoretically accurate, lots are also not.
Bigger photosites do give better dynamical range, but that's marginal for us. We shoot at the lowest ISO, we use focus stacking. Dynamical range isn't something we typically care about. Overblow or underexpose something, want to pull it out in post then run a stack? You'll discover the sheer amount of noise in the stack, making it look like an ISO 3200 (or worse!!!) exposure.
Correction: Flawed example presented. Typically people like to pull the shadows out as an attempt to retrieve more detail in darker specimens. I usually apply highlights -100 to my raw before exporting it to tiff, that won't generate a bunch of noise.
Does image quality solely depend on dynamical range? Not really, the line is over-simplification. Bigger pixels do yield better low-light performance, but that also doesn't matter unless you do fluorescence microscopy.
In your example, it makes nearly zero sense to go medium format since you're wasting all that coverage, thereby arriving at my original point "why not just get a 24MP FF camera?"
I'm not sure about the MTF of an MP-E, I know the Laowa beats it at every magnification in its range, and the Laowa 25mm ultra-macro has the resolution of a mit 5x just with more CA, so ~36MP monochrome FF sensor, meaning it's good for 50MP colour. The MP-E may or may not struggle here, but the Laowa and 5x mit is definitely fine.
Speaking of medium format, Laowa has a 116mm 2.6x line scanner lens that they made for LCD/LED-based display observation QC, it's a large format lens with edge-to-edge sharpness, coverage, and resolution. It will be adapted to medium format mounts, the GFX100s is fed.
Oh wait, eh well I'm struggling with an assignment, I'll zip up.
Anyhow, you will be good with a high MP FF sensor. Adapting lenses designed for FF to medium format isn't as bad as some may think. It's true that wide angle lenses typically show mechanical vignetting, but at macro distances, who knows? You're also using a lens designed for smaller pixels (thus has higher resolution) on a camera with larger pixels. If the coverage is 100% adequate, it's not a bad idea.
Unimportant stuff:
So, 11/9 and 11/8 times FF.
51 divided by these 2, so just shy of 31MP. That's around an EOS R's sensor size. Conventional FF low resolution sensors are 24MP. 36MP used to be high, but 45 is the new 36.
Not sure about the eyeballs analogy, did you get that from Ken Wheeler? Do be careful, while lots of his stuff are theoretically accurate, lots are also not.
Bigger photosites do give better dynamical range, but that's marginal for us. We shoot at the lowest ISO, we use focus stacking. Dynamical range isn't something we typically care about. Overblow or underexpose something, want to pull it out in post then run a stack? You'll discover the sheer amount of noise in the stack, making it look like an ISO 3200 (or worse!!!) exposure.
Correction: Flawed example presented. Typically people like to pull the shadows out as an attempt to retrieve more detail in darker specimens. I usually apply highlights -100 to my raw before exporting it to tiff, that won't generate a bunch of noise.
Does image quality solely depend on dynamical range? Not really, the line is over-simplification. Bigger pixels do yield better low-light performance, but that also doesn't matter unless you do fluorescence microscopy.
In your example, it makes nearly zero sense to go medium format since you're wasting all that coverage, thereby arriving at my original point "why not just get a 24MP FF camera?"
I'm not sure about the MTF of an MP-E, I know the Laowa beats it at every magnification in its range, and the Laowa 25mm ultra-macro has the resolution of a mit 5x just with more CA, so ~36MP monochrome FF sensor, meaning it's good for 50MP colour. The MP-E may or may not struggle here, but the Laowa and 5x mit is definitely fine.
Speaking of medium format, Laowa has a 116mm 2.6x line scanner lens that they made for LCD/LED-based display observation QC, it's a large format lens with edge-to-edge sharpness, coverage, and resolution. It will be adapted to medium format mounts, the GFX100s is fed.
Oh wait, eh well I'm struggling with an assignment, I'll zip up.
Anyhow, you will be good with a high MP FF sensor. Adapting lenses designed for FF to medium format isn't as bad as some may think. It's true that wide angle lenses typically show mechanical vignetting, but at macro distances, who knows? You're also using a lens designed for smaller pixels (thus has higher resolution) on a camera with larger pixels. If the coverage is 100% adequate, it's not a bad idea.
Unimportant stuff:
Another thing, larger or smaller sensors don't technically yield shallower or greater depth of field. Depth of field is a matter of focal length, aperture used, and distance to the subject. It has nothing to do the size of the imaging device. The DOF is a matter of what you want to control out of the 3 variables, equivalency makes communication easier, where the same framing and lens is considered, therefore to get the same framing with the same lens or distance, one must change the distance or the lens respectively to account for the "cropping factor". It's not the sensor changing the DOF, it's distance or FL. Same goes with "lens compression", in that case, framing is also equalised, so to get the same framing, one must change distance to account for different focal lengths, the FOV is doing the "compression". This isn't semantics, it's how optics work.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
I have a Hassy x1d mk2, and tried to look into high mag solution. It gets expensive pretty quickly.
First there is no one making x1d adaptors of any sort unless you adaptor down to full frame DSLR mount. Canon ef mount might be close enough. Then it is hard to find tube that is wide enough for the mf mount size. You can go thorlab 3in tubes but it is adding up costs. Novoflex makes big enough bellow but not long enough for line scan lens. You still need to stack tubes. The standard is also not strong enough for these big line scan lens.
For 5x or under, line scan lens from nikkor, Schneider, or rodenstock will burn a big 5-15k usd hole in your pocket. Then you still have to find someone to machine rings with special thread size for you.
For high mag, only qioptiq mag.x and it’s tube lens system has the quoted coverage for MF sensor. And it is not that much higher. That is probably 20k proposition.
Both fuji and hassy don’t have a lot of long enough tele lens to act as the tube lens.
For hassy x1d there is not plane shutter so only electric shutter left. This might or might not be applicable to Fuji but the use of flash is out of the question for electronic shutter.
Lastly, the only pixel shift capable MF is hassy 600mb back. Maybe fuji 100 will have it in the future if high pixel is your cup of tea.
After all these, I might just stick with S1R and be peaceful.
First there is no one making x1d adaptors of any sort unless you adaptor down to full frame DSLR mount. Canon ef mount might be close enough. Then it is hard to find tube that is wide enough for the mf mount size. You can go thorlab 3in tubes but it is adding up costs. Novoflex makes big enough bellow but not long enough for line scan lens. You still need to stack tubes. The standard is also not strong enough for these big line scan lens.
For 5x or under, line scan lens from nikkor, Schneider, or rodenstock will burn a big 5-15k usd hole in your pocket. Then you still have to find someone to machine rings with special thread size for you.
For high mag, only qioptiq mag.x and it’s tube lens system has the quoted coverage for MF sensor. And it is not that much higher. That is probably 20k proposition.
Both fuji and hassy don’t have a lot of long enough tele lens to act as the tube lens.
For hassy x1d there is not plane shutter so only electric shutter left. This might or might not be applicable to Fuji but the use of flash is out of the question for electronic shutter.
Lastly, the only pixel shift capable MF is hassy 600mb back. Maybe fuji 100 will have it in the future if high pixel is your cup of tea.
After all these, I might just stick with S1R and be peaceful.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
On MF, infinity-corrected tube lenses are the way to go for higher m. I suspect the SK variogon MF zoom would make a good tube lens for Hasselblad. The Hasselblad 250mm Super-achromat might be a fantastic tube lens, but an expensive one. Meanwhile you could always use LF lenses as tube lenses. Some of the apo 210mm and 240mm large format lenses are excellent tube lenses even on small sensors.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
lot of good advice here already here some of my thoughts:
one is it depend a bit on image ratio:
FF sensors are usually 3:2 and digital entry medium format more 4:3.
so if you like a more square ratio, you'll have to crop FF images, while if you prefer 3:2 images, you'd have to crop the medium format image, reducing resolution.
the other thing is that as mentioned by others you need a higher magnification to get the same FOV: 1.375x for a fit in image height and 1.22x for a fit in image width, which means smaller DoF and more problems with diffraction at magnifications above 1:1.
obviously finding lenses with good coverage and corner sharpness is harder.
and finally, I also find that pixel shift brings more to image quality then simply a bigger sensor:
more detail, no moiree, less noise, more dynamic range.
the main downside is significantly longer capture times (about 20sec per frame on my S1R)
one is it depend a bit on image ratio:
FF sensors are usually 3:2 and digital entry medium format more 4:3.
so if you like a more square ratio, you'll have to crop FF images, while if you prefer 3:2 images, you'd have to crop the medium format image, reducing resolution.
the other thing is that as mentioned by others you need a higher magnification to get the same FOV: 1.375x for a fit in image height and 1.22x for a fit in image width, which means smaller DoF and more problems with diffraction at magnifications above 1:1.
obviously finding lenses with good coverage and corner sharpness is harder.
and finally, I also find that pixel shift brings more to image quality then simply a bigger sensor:
more detail, no moiree, less noise, more dynamic range.
the main downside is significantly longer capture times (about 20sec per frame on my S1R)
chris
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Pixel shift is a lot faster on my k1.
Have to check that.
Have to check that.
-
iconoclastica
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:34 pm
- Location: Wageningen, Gelderland
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
It appears to me that all thinking in this discussion is technlogy driven. How many pixels do we need to sharply image that microfilament?. The elephant in the room (the beast will appear again below) is the question not spoken: what do I want to show in my picture? Always there are more details and either sensor or optics or even physics is limiting.
Suppose we made pictures of an elephant (here it is). What would we want to show? Its trunk, its tail, the thick legs, its huge grey body... everything that defines it as an elephant. There are hairs on its body. Do we need to show them? No, that would not be a picture of an elephant any more,but one of an elephant's hair. I'd say it calls for a different magnification not to show the utmost detail and also the whole in a single image.
We all are familiar with the concept of empty magnification, which, in my wording, is having so many pixels that quite a number of them have to share the same detail, since no more detail is delivered by the optics. Right, but what's wrong with the opposite, having more than enough details to fill all pixels with their own and still having more details that could be delivered by the optics? In non-micro non-macro ordinary photography this always has been the goal: a good sharp lens.
Suppose we made pictures of an elephant (here it is). What would we want to show? Its trunk, its tail, the thick legs, its huge grey body... everything that defines it as an elephant. There are hairs on its body. Do we need to show them? No, that would not be a picture of an elephant any more,but one of an elephant's hair. I'd say it calls for a different magnification not to show the utmost detail and also the whole in a single image.
We all are familiar with the concept of empty magnification, which, in my wording, is having so many pixels that quite a number of them have to share the same detail, since no more detail is delivered by the optics. Right, but what's wrong with the opposite, having more than enough details to fill all pixels with their own and still having more details that could be delivered by the optics? In non-micro non-macro ordinary photography this always has been the goal: a good sharp lens.
--- felix filicis ---
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
ONm the Pentax k1 it is about 16-17s though it depends on the card speed. That's 4-image pixel shifting, which does not change the pixel dimensions, though it does eliminate the significant loss of resolution due to the Bayer filters.Pixel shift is a lot faster on my k1.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Hi Cunha,
I would say, neither nor :-)
e.g. the cheap EOS M6 Mark II offers:
- sensor size: 22.3 x 14.9 mm
- resolution: 32.5 MP
- pixel pitch: 3.2 µm
- compatibility with the all Mituyouo M Plan Apo
According to my tests the level of the noise is smaller than in the M3 with 24MP.
BR, ADi
I would say, neither nor :-)
e.g. the cheap EOS M6 Mark II offers:
- sensor size: 22.3 x 14.9 mm
- resolution: 32.5 MP
- pixel pitch: 3.2 µm
- compatibility with the all Mituyouo M Plan Apo
According to my tests the level of the noise is smaller than in the M3 with 24MP.
BR, ADi
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Lou Jost wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 amONm the Pentax k1 it is about 16-17s though it depends on the card speed. That's 4-image pixel shifting, which does not change the pixel dimensions, though it does eliminate the significant loss of resolution due to the Bayer filters.Pixel shift is a lot faster on my k1.
I just tried it: All togheter about 8 seconds, about 4 seconds for the 4 shots and about 4 seconds to process the data. Have you updated your firmware? Or try another card.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
I use the 8 exposure high-res pixelshift mode on the S1R.
Shooting tethered, it takes about 20sec to show up on the computer.
Slower then the K-1, but higher resolution and even less noise.
I agree that most people dont really need this level of detail for making lovely images, in my case it‘s more a technical use then classical photography.
Shooting tethered, it takes about 20sec to show up on the computer.
Slower then the K-1, but higher resolution and even less noise.
I agree that most people dont really need this level of detail for making lovely images, in my case it‘s more a technical use then classical photography.
chris
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Does the S1R allows focus bracketing?
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Hello everyone,
I am very grateful for your contributions. Indeed a huge help.
It starts to be clear, there is no great advantage in using MF for macro.
I think I will continue on the FF, for macro and everything else. However I have been at the same time considering alternatives to Canon in the face of what I wrote about the Canon R5 above.
I considered the Sony A7RIV, but despite the impressive settings, I don't think I'll get used to its ergonomics. It's a shame because I could still count on Zeiss lenses that I'm a user of.
I also set out to investigate the Lumix S1R, of which I knew nothing and coincidentally some of you mentioned it in this post, in these last comments. Apparently some of you are users of it. I found that they have excellent ergonomics, construction, excellent image quality (if the DXOMark is reliable) and it has that Multishot function that I have not yet realized whether it is in fact advantageous or not for macro or for other types of images (landscape? portrait?) as long as there is no movement. But it is very... intriguing and promising. I think Lloyd (Diglloyd) says very well about this S1R Multishot and he deserves all my confidence. It was with him, I learned everything I know about Zeiss, in the subscription I had.
One of the friends talked about Ken Wheeler; if hey i've already seen the videos adele and if it was clamor it was there that i removed the expression "eyeballs", but i know that he is from a league that cannot be trusted in everything he says. There is a lot of exaggeration, repetition and an ego, at least "noisy".
But lets forget MF for now.
The Multishot; it is reminiscent of a 19th century photography in which those portrayed had to spend minutes standing still and in the sun .-)
This S1R resembles the Leica SL design (it will not be by chance) which I like a lot.
I would gladly change the system for the S1R if several variants are proven, in my case.
1. proven the overall quality of the machine and the good price it now has in the face of R5.
2. being able to use my Canon EF lenses (which I already use adapted) and my manual Zeiss ZE (21mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm). In the case of Canon, they are 40mm STM (macro), MP-E 65mm macro and 100mm macro L.
3. If my lenses do not work, I am willing to replace Zeiss with Leica R; as long as they work well and turn out to be affordable, because I like lenses with some character in general photography, and if the Canon ones don't work well; Laowa alternatives (maybe even better here than the old MP-E, in terms of sharpness and more circular bokeh?) and in the case of the 100mm L, a Lumix alternative or another brand. The 40mm is my travel lens for being light. You can replace it with something else without a problem. There are also Sigma, but I find them very "clinical".
Tell me I'm not crazy :-)
I hope with your help that I reach some conclusion to overcome this impasse, which aims to increase the IQ of my work.
Thanks a lot.
Regards.
I am very grateful for your contributions. Indeed a huge help.
It starts to be clear, there is no great advantage in using MF for macro.
I think I will continue on the FF, for macro and everything else. However I have been at the same time considering alternatives to Canon in the face of what I wrote about the Canon R5 above.
I considered the Sony A7RIV, but despite the impressive settings, I don't think I'll get used to its ergonomics. It's a shame because I could still count on Zeiss lenses that I'm a user of.
I also set out to investigate the Lumix S1R, of which I knew nothing and coincidentally some of you mentioned it in this post, in these last comments. Apparently some of you are users of it. I found that they have excellent ergonomics, construction, excellent image quality (if the DXOMark is reliable) and it has that Multishot function that I have not yet realized whether it is in fact advantageous or not for macro or for other types of images (landscape? portrait?) as long as there is no movement. But it is very... intriguing and promising. I think Lloyd (Diglloyd) says very well about this S1R Multishot and he deserves all my confidence. It was with him, I learned everything I know about Zeiss, in the subscription I had.
One of the friends talked about Ken Wheeler; if hey i've already seen the videos adele and if it was clamor it was there that i removed the expression "eyeballs", but i know that he is from a league that cannot be trusted in everything he says. There is a lot of exaggeration, repetition and an ego, at least "noisy".
But lets forget MF for now.
The Multishot; it is reminiscent of a 19th century photography in which those portrayed had to spend minutes standing still and in the sun .-)
This S1R resembles the Leica SL design (it will not be by chance) which I like a lot.
I would gladly change the system for the S1R if several variants are proven, in my case.
1. proven the overall quality of the machine and the good price it now has in the face of R5.
2. being able to use my Canon EF lenses (which I already use adapted) and my manual Zeiss ZE (21mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm). In the case of Canon, they are 40mm STM (macro), MP-E 65mm macro and 100mm macro L.
3. If my lenses do not work, I am willing to replace Zeiss with Leica R; as long as they work well and turn out to be affordable, because I like lenses with some character in general photography, and if the Canon ones don't work well; Laowa alternatives (maybe even better here than the old MP-E, in terms of sharpness and more circular bokeh?) and in the case of the 100mm L, a Lumix alternative or another brand. The 40mm is my travel lens for being light. You can replace it with something else without a problem. There are also Sigma, but I find them very "clinical".
Tell me I'm not crazy :-)
I hope with your help that I reach some conclusion to overcome this impasse, which aims to increase the IQ of my work.
Thanks a lot.
Regards.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
As someone who have handled both SL2, S1R and X1D by non trivial amount, I would say that I would say that sl2 and x1d mk2 inspire me to take photos more so than s1r, while s1r is a very feature complete camera. X1D has no IBIS and the system is generally slow with some rough edges in software, while sl2 and s1r are both much more polished products in user interface stability. I have used both xcd lenses and Leica lenses and they are both excellent. There is only 1 macro lens for xcd with 1:2 mag and it is extremely slow and heavy. Sigma has a 70mm 1:1 macro that is pretty fast and extremely sharp and light weight.
Other than these lenses, you will have to take the adapter route or third party like lakes. However I tried adapting canon lenses on s1r with mixed stability result.
Iirc multi shot in s1r uses focal plane shutter while sl2 is e shutter. I shot watches with multi shot and there is noticeable difference in resolution.
If I still have canon gears, and plan to still use canon gears, I would stay with canon. There are a lot of 40-50mp canon camera model and there are just a lot of third party tooling and support. Similar comments about Nikon.
That being said, x1d takes pretty sweet pictures.
Other than these lenses, you will have to take the adapter route or third party like lakes. However I tried adapting canon lenses on s1r with mixed stability result.
Iirc multi shot in s1r uses focal plane shutter while sl2 is e shutter. I shot watches with multi shot and there is noticeable difference in resolution.
If I still have canon gears, and plan to still use canon gears, I would stay with canon. There are a lot of 40-50mp canon camera model and there are just a lot of third party tooling and support. Similar comments about Nikon.
That being said, x1d takes pretty sweet pictures.
Re: Full Frame or Medium Format?
Guido, thanks for the information about your Pentax pixel-shift speeds. Can I ask what card you are using?
Cunha, I like the S1R quite a bit, it has become my main macro camera. However, I cannot get it to focus bracket with the Sigma 70mm lens in Canon mount + MC21 Sigma converter, which was designed for the S1R and advertised (dishonetsly in my opinion) as making Sigma's Canon-mount Art lenses compatible with the S1R. Focus bracketing is the most important feature of a camera for macro use, in my opinion.
However, I greatly prefer the S1R over any DSLR, and I love that it can use all my lenses, regardless of manufacturer. I have had both Canon and Nikon systems (at different times) and so I have a lot of legacy lenses. And I now also use some special Pentax lenses and M42 lenses on it. This is very liberating.
I still use my Olympus MFT cameras for focus bracketing. This is a wonderful thing.
Cunha, I like the S1R quite a bit, it has become my main macro camera. However, I cannot get it to focus bracket with the Sigma 70mm lens in Canon mount + MC21 Sigma converter, which was designed for the S1R and advertised (dishonetsly in my opinion) as making Sigma's Canon-mount Art lenses compatible with the S1R. Focus bracketing is the most important feature of a camera for macro use, in my opinion.
However, I greatly prefer the S1R over any DSLR, and I love that it can use all my lenses, regardless of manufacturer. I have had both Canon and Nikon systems (at different times) and so I have a lot of legacy lenses. And I now also use some special Pentax lenses and M42 lenses on it. This is very liberating.
I still use my Olympus MFT cameras for focus bracketing. This is a wonderful thing.