Medium format style shots with Canon EOS system

[paulo_cortez]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Although I would like to invest in medium format photography, the required additional time for it, when comparing to digital SLR photography, compromises this step as I barely have the time for the latter. Therefore and until things calm down, I would like to try to replicate some of the photographic effects typical of medium format that I like most but <strong>using a Canon EOS system</strong>.</p>

<p>One of these effects is the emphasizing of a subject by using large apertures, with shallower depth of fields but, contrary to SLR photos, with a very slight and uniform defocusing of what's outside the focal plane. I've posted some links to illustrate this effect.</p>

<p>I was thinking of the following system:</p>

<p>- Canon EOS 5D Mark II (I've a 5D but IMHO the MkII extra-pixels help taking the most from the 24mm)<br /> - Canon EF 24mm f1.4L Mark II<br /> - Neutral balance filters to use large apertures even with bright light conditions<br /> - <strong>no digital post-processing</strong></p>

<p>Is this feasible? If yes, can you post links of similar pictures taken with Canon gear with info of how it was done?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your help,<br /> Paulo</p>

<p> /> />

<p><b>Admin edit: Images removed. As per the Terms of USE, please do not post images to photo.net that you did not make yourself. If you need to reference images from other photographers, please do so with a link.</b>

[paulo_cortez]

<p>I forgot to mention the following:<br /> - Canon EF 24mm f1.4L Mark II - to use apertures between f2-f3.5 without compromising resolution<br>

- the subject kept to a minimum distance of 2 m from the camera</p>

[paulo_cortez]

<p>More examples:<br>

[daniel flather]

<p>A 5dv2 with the 24/1.4v2 and some ND filters to open up in the bight will yield fotos like your examples. Do it!</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I saw an article where a famous photographer used a full frame camera and a tilt shift lens. The T/S gave him more control over th eentire photo.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p><strong>Mods, turn off the bo</strong></b>ld.</p>

[paulo_cortez]

<p>Sorry again, I wrote "Neutral balance" but I meant "Neutral density".<br>

Nathan, do you have a link to that article or you saw it on paper?</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>All of the pictures you linked to can be taken with DSLR. although I have no way of knowing, most probably were taken with a DSLR.</p>

<p>To get narrow depth of field with any camera you need to do the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>Get as close to the subject as possbile.</li>

<li>use a longer focal length lens.</li>

<li>use a larger aperture. </li>

</ul>

<p>You don't have to do all three. Sometimes a larger aperture is all you need. Sometimes getting closer to the subject is all you need. </p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>Paulo,</p>

<p>It sound like you want to control the Depth of Field. You'll need a fast lens for the effect you're looking for. 24mm 1.4L II is a great lens but the DOF may not be shallow enough if you are shooting from far. You have to get very close to your subject to get the background to blur more. You should check out the following site:<br>

<a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a></p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>A 24 is way too wide to replicate those images. The 35 f1.2L would be far better and a closer match, though a 50 would be closer to some. <a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx">This link might help.</a></p>

<p>Whilst I understand you have set yourself a target of no post processing, this is unrealistic and, if you think about it, not actually possible unless you just shoot jpegs, in which case you could use a P&S, you will certainly not approach MF quality for decent sized prints unless you do a little post work and shoot RAW. But, spend some time sorting out a custom profile that can include vignette corrections and you will get very close with good technique.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[zml]

<p>This picture <a rel="nofollow" href=" target="_blank"> />is taken with a (most likely wide open or near wide open) 50/4 mm wide angle lens on a 6x6 cm negative. I happen to know that lens (had to use East German stuff by necessity, not by choice, in my youth) and that picture shows its focus/out of focus characteristics fairly well. I'd say, get a Flektogon lens if you wanna duplicate the look :-)<br />Seriously, RENT SOME SETUPS before plunking down the $$ and learn digital post processing if you are after a certain "look": you may not realize that, but in the film era ALL pictures were post processed (do you realize how much skill was involved and how difficult it was to get the proper color balance, contrast, gradation, etc., working in total, or near total, darkness..? Not to mention that the apparent DOF can be manipulated by dodging/burning...No two darkroom workers would get exactly the same results from the same negative...)</p>

<p>The FOV of a 50 mm lens in MF equals approx. that of a 28 mm lens on a 24x36 mm frame so get a full frame body and a 28 mm lens and try different distances and f/stops for the similar framing at the desired DOF. (For MF 50 mm lens @ f/4 from 10 ft, CoC 0.045, the DOF would be approx. 4.5 ft. and approx. 7 ft at f/5.6.)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>There is no way I am going to question your MF and LF experience, but that image is the only very wide angle image and has a very different look to the others as well.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p >John Shaw uses these lenses on his full frame Nikons:</p>

<p >24mm f3.5 PC-E Tilt/Shift</p>

<p >45mm f2.8 PC-E Tilt/Shift</p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.johnshawphoto.com/</p>

 

[zml]

<p>Well, I was writing about that particular picture. The two other shots were done with a classic Hasselblad 80/2.8 mm Planar setup, again at f/4 or so. Nothing spectacular in that look and can be easily approximated/duplicated with any FF camera and a 50 mm lens, even the lowly 50/1.8. Now, all cameras and media (sensor/film) have characteristics that may be difficult/impossible to achieve with a different setup, sometimes boiling down to the proverbial <em>je ne</em> sais <em>quoi </em>but the fun is in trying...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>here it is Paulo.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/transforming-large-format.html">http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/transforming-large-format.html</a></p>

[dan_south]

<p>If you want to approximate the look of film, set your white balance to Daylight. If the pictures appear to be too blue or too yellow, you'll need to add the appropriate filter. An 81B will counteract blue; an 80C will counteract yellow.<br>

<br />Slide films like Velvia have a lot of saturation and contrast. Print films have less of both. You'll have to set up your camera/software to approximate the look that you want.<br /><br /><br>

The fastest MF lenses that I've ever used were f/2.8, and most MF lenses are at f/4. Shooting at f/1.4 is not necessary.</p>

<p>Crop your photos to match the aspect ration of 645, 6x7, or 6x6. This is easy to do in Lightroom. The hard part will be to visualize a more square composition while looking through a 2x3 viewfinder.</p>

<p>No post processing? Not recommended. Just about every file needs to be sharpened, and unless you're using DPP, the colors in your RAW files will not be accurate until you modify your curves or contrast or select an appropriate preset. And as mentioned above, you'll need some post processing to emulate the look of particular types of film.</p>

<p> </p>

[ruslan]

<p>A friend of mine who has been for 40 years in photography and who was an assistant of Vladimir Syomin, uses 5D Mk2 and 24/1.4 L. (Григорий Лобода) According to his words, this combo does not deliver a level of medium format quality. I believe RAW is not the name of the game. 24/1.4L has soft corners and centre does not reach the limit of the sensor's resolution.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I don't know if its been said yet, but for medium format detail and quality, stitching should be a given, even with a full frame camera. That will require post processing.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I'm not sure why you're need to stitch images unless you're trying to replicate a 6x17 panoramic camera. The 5D mark II has comparable resolution to a 6x9 film camera. I see more detail in my 5D2 images as in my sharpest 6x7 chromes. Your results may vary.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking of the following system:<br>

- Canon EOS 5D Mark II (I've a 5D but IMHO the MkII extra-pixels help taking the most from the 24mm)<br />- Canon EF 24mm f1.4L Mark II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 5D is a fine camera. However one of he common traits of short focal length lenses is that the have a very large depth of feild. You will probably find it hard to get the results you want with a 24mm lens. At a minimum I would suggest a 50mm but the best focal length for you will deptend a lot on your subjects and individual style. </p>

<p>You definitely should get a wide aperture lens. however one word of warning is that with wide aperture lenses. With a wide open aperture you might find the depth of field so narrow that you will find it very difficult to get enough of your subject in focus. Additionally most lenses are not at there sharpest wide open. Stopping down the lens a little can result in a sharper image and more depth of field. Any motion of the subject and you the photographer may make it very hard to get the lens properly focused with the aperture wide open. I frequently resort to manual focusing and use a tripod for better control in difficult situations.</p>

[carnagex_carnagex]

<p>You can always try an after market product like the Horsemand LD http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/digital/LD.html or the new Sinar P-SLR http://www.sinar.ch/en/products/cameras/233-sinar-p-slr (or if you have a 4x5 setup you pick up an adapter plate for cheap on ebay).</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Dang this thread has gotten long. First thing I would say though is that nothing here can be accomplished with a tilt/shift lens! Tilt shift lenses when used to limit depth of field limit it in the "vertical" plane (eyes in focus, feet out of focus etc) and all of these are in focus vertically (which indicates a normal focal plane) and since they are slower lenses, are going to have more depth of field that a faster non-TSE lens. One of these shots was sort of wide, about a 28mm ff equiv and the rest were shot with a normal lens. There is no big magic to these, they were just shot fairly wide open and one can get a sense of this just looking through the camera at a scene with a fast, normal lens. The wide lenses suggested above, for those closer portraits are going to end up distorting the figure and that is not the effect here.</p>

<p>The color effects in these images are pretty much as suggested above, shot with daylight balance film (not AWB in your camera) but certainly can be emulated when doing your post regardless of how shot. In fact, other than the shot of the Nun and Monk, the other two have been warmed up in post as there is less blue in these than one would find in these lighting conditions(shadows and overcast)--it is just a matter of taste and even when darkroom printing film, people adjusted for blue when it was a bit more than they liked.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>No, it's not really possible to duplicate the combination of wide field and shallow depth of field that gives the look you like in MF with any 35mm system, even the full-frame 5D2. You can come rather close, but you are fighting an uphill battle.</p>

<p>A 6x6 medium-format camera with an 80mm lens gives you a 38 degree field of view side-to-side. The Canon full-frame is of course a rectangle format camera, but if you measure field of view off the short side of the sensor, the lens of equivalent field of view has a 35mm focal length.</p>

<p>For a subject distance of 10 feet, an 80mm lens at f/4 will give you front-back depth of field of 1.12 feet. (I'm using a circle of confusion of 0.03mm in this calculation.) For the same subject distance with the 35mm lens, even if you open it up all the way to f/1.4, your front-back depth of field is 2.11 feet. That means that you won't get as much background blur with the Canon SLR.</p>

<p>These calculations are easy if you use this website:</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With Full frame 35mm; when one uses say a 35mm F1.4; or a 50mm F1.2 or 50mm F1.0; one has a decent sized "aperture" when one is wide open<br /> <br /> Here is a series run with a COC of 0.03mm<br /> <br /> with a 80mm at F4 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.12 feet<br /> <br /> with a 50mm at F1.4 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.02 feet<br /> <br /> with a 35mm at F1.4 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 2.11 feet<br /> <br /> with a 50mm at F1 ; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 0.72 feet<br /> <br /> with a 50mm at F1.8; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 1.29 feet</p>

<p>with a 80mm at F2.8; subject at 10 ft one has a total front to back DOF of 0.79 feet<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thus a lowly F1.8 or F2 lens on any 35mm camera made in the last 75 years has a rather shallow DOF.<br /> My experience is that it is rather easy to get a shallow DOF in 35mm</p>

<p>A shot with a Rollie TLR 80mm at F2.8 has about the same DOF at 10 ft as with a Noct 50mm F1 at 10 ft.<br /> This was pointed out back when F1.2 and F1 lenses were new.<br>

<br /> It was in a 1950's photo magazine about 1/2 century ago; when RF 35mm lenses were F1.1 and F1.2; like the canon 50mm F1.2 LTM lens</p>

[Brad_]

>>> - no digital post-processing. Is this feasible?

 

 

No. You will always need post-processing to bring out the best in your photos.