Please clarify. Do you mean Medium Format shooting film compared to 35mm Digital? Or do you mean Medium Format digital verses 35mm digital?Is the greatest distinction between the images produced from these two different types ofcameras that you can make a larger quality print from the medium format? thank you joanlvh
If you are not getting smoother tonal transitions and superior rendering of detail with the MF scans, it would suggest that your post processing techniques need review and improvement.I am only an enthusiast not a pro so my experience particularly with equipment is limited but there is an observation and would welcome any comments. Years ago when I had access to a darkroom and did my own b/w enlargements the 6x6 negs obviously produced superior prints. Even when I print small, like a full frame square on 8x10 it is obvious the tones are way superior than an 8x10 from 135. This is all elementary. Now fast forward 20 years I am scanning 120 and 135 on a 9000ED. I get 180Mb files from medium format scans and roughly 60Mb files from 135. If I print A3 on an inkjet obviously I don't need such large files so the excess data is deleted and the outputs look the same whether the original data came from medium or small format. So unless I have been doing some wrong or logic flawed then isn't MF wasted if I don't print large or off some pro grade printer?
Hi Fotografz, I've been looking at getting a Leica lately, I shoot a FM2 but with regular 'real glass' manual nikon lenses, all primes etc. I would like to own the 35mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.2 but the investment makes me think that i should change the system altogether for a leica system, plus the possibility of adding a m8 or m9 (if it happens to exist) is quite something.I shoot film with a Leica, and Nikon F6 with Zeiss ZF optics ... .
Ha! I have found your question Carlos.Hi Fotografz, I've been looking at getting a Leica lately, I shoot a FM2 but with regular 'real glass' manual nikon lenses, all primes etc. I would like to own the 35mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.2 but the investment makes me think that i should change the system altogether for a leica system, plus the possibility of adding a m8 or m9 (if it happens to exist) is quite something.
How will you compare the nikon with zeiss (or the best nikon primes) to your leica system,
I have tried the new ZF lenses and I really think they lack quality, my guess is they are using the same plastic rubish everybody else is using today (canon/nikon) but they somehow make it look old-fashioned and good with the aesthetic design (metal shell, all manual, etc)
what will you advice?
For the serious photographer, who wants the very best, with 100Mpx + res (without pan-and-stitch), movements... the difference is that a medium format digital back can be mounted on the back of a view camera, and used with a stitching back.Is the greatest distinction between the images produced from these two different types ofcameras that you can make a larger quality print from the medium format? thank you joanlvh
I do not mind using a tripod - I have three, a carbon Gitzo, a Heavy, fully geared Manfrotto, and a very heavy 10m Manfrotto Agnoscope ...that I hope to use with live view sometime.I have the M8 and several apo lenses and Hasselblad 16Mpix gears.
However when possible I prefer film. Perhaps I will change my mind with the new M9 and CFV--39 digitals.
If you dislike taking pictures with tripod, the M is the good answer until you do not need fast telelenses.
With the 21mm to 50mm Leica is real fun, longer lenses are not so easy and comfortable. The M9 is the smallest digital in 24x36mm area. And the CWD is perhaps smaller than the top Nikon body.
Anyway I was really surprised about the good result of Velvia 50 on 56x56mm if I compare to the M8. And I was very surprised after using a Zeiss distagon 50mm 2,8 made for Hasselblad fitted on a Canon 450D.
I suppose that the CFV 39 will be far better than what I tried before.
Perhaps a Hasselblad V and Leica M is the "must have" for the ones who wants quality and not be served by all automatic robots.