MF design, outdated??

[eric_ung]

Just read an old thread in general photo forum about qualities of image taken by optimized 35mm

(good lenses with slow film) system versus suboptimal MF system (third party extender with fast

film). Not suprisingly, they were similar.

Of course, it generated a lot of comments and one comment said the outdated design and construction

of MF lenses and bodies when compared with the top 35mm system actually contribute as well.

To me, I don't agree with that as I have invested so much already. However, on second thought,

especially whenever I have to reload my MF, whenever I have to travel with my gears and whenever I

want to shoot on tele-side, I really want to ask, " Why it is designed in this way".

I know each systems have their own pros and cons, so I still keep my 35mm. But, why don't they

make better design. For example, why EOS 's way of loading film can't occur in MF

and...................................Any comment!

[andreas_carl]

I have no idea what's the point of comparing optimized 35mm gear with suboptimal MF gear??? I wouldn't call the Carl Zeiss 350 Superachromat outdated and suboptimal, would you? The way I load film in my Hassie, so far has not had negative impact on my picture quality and I wouldn't want to carry a motorized film back (if such thing ever cama about) just to safe a few seconds. Just my thoughts...

[Spearhead]

There are far too many variables involved in testing real quality differences, and also many different metrics, to trust a random internet poster. However,<p>

 

<i>I don't agree with that as I have invested so much already</I><p>

 

is an admission of what drives many comments here, that somehow the results are justified by the investment rather than the <i>real</i> result, which is the image. <p>

 

When I selected my current MF system, I consulted a photographer who has produced hundreds of thousands of images, with both commercial (SI, Volvo ads, etc) and fine art work. He was familiar with my images, had seen my prints, and was able to help on this. I don't think random internet posters can really tell you the difference, especially given that, if they have no photos to show, you have no idea if they even understand or have shot enough to help make a decision. Unless, of course, they have run a real testing lab.

[peter_nermander]

I think the answers this far does not address the original question, but instead try to answer "is MF really better than 35 mm?".

 

The original poster, as far as I can tell, does NOT talk about picture quality but the design of the camera.

 

Would the picture quality really suffer from the camera being more ergonomically designed? Would picture quality suffer from drop-in film loading? Would picture quality suffer from changing the body form to make it possible to hold it like a 35 mm camera (right hand grip and left hand holding lens)?

[songster]

With regard to design, most people would agree that every camera is designed with specific purpose in mind. IMO, most if not all 35mm cameras are made for convenience to allow fast shooting. This (together with smaller format) may also contribute partially to the abundance and popularity of zoom lenses and auto-focus capability. The convenience and ability to shoot fast is important for many types of photography and for amateur day to day use. With the introduction of Contax and Mamiya AF MF cameras, some of the above may start to change, though I still don�t think an AF MF camera with 220 film loaded would be anywhere near a mid- to high-level 35mm system in terms of convenience as size and weight would always increase with larger film format.

 

I made the switch from Nikon AF 35mm to Rollei MF a couple of years ago, and I�ve never miss the ease of the 35mm AF system since I am never pressed for time when shooting MF. Of course film loading could have been easier at the beginning, but after about 5 rolls, it didn�t seem so cumbersome anymore. Of course the setup could be smaller, but I am getting >3X the film area. By slowing down, the MF system has actually improved some aspects of my photography. That does not mean MF has completely replaced 35mm as some tasks are more easily achieved with 35mm. I have recently ventured into LF, and I don�t think I have to discuss its �ease� of use.

 

With regard to quality, can an optimized 35mm produce better (sharper rather, since that�s how �quality� of photos are compared in this forum) pictures than a sub-par MF? I have recently seen the works of a local photographer shooting 35mm (Nikon or Canon I believe) on TechPan, and his prints (as large as 20x24/24x30) has less grain than some of my 6x6 shot on Tri-X. The 35mm+TechPan combo has less detail, though, probably due to the film having more resolving power than the lens. However, I agree with other posters that this kind of comparison is meaningless in most respects.

 

One final note, MF systems are getting more user friendly. In addition to AF, several new cameras can read the barcode on Fuji films, some record shooting data on film edge, and many systems have either standard or optional motorized film advance....

 

My 2 �fens�.

 

Song

[jkantor]

Digital is going to eclipse both formats anyway. Unfortunately, the real potential of digital (cameras and lenses smaller - and significantly cheaper - than 35mm, but with quality exceeding that of MF) won't come to pass anytime soon, since manufacturer's have too much vested interest in selling their current bodies and glass.

[scott_eaton]

<I>For example, why EOS 's way of loading film can't occur in MF and..</i><P>At last check, Contax makes a highly capable, AF, 645 camera body, but at a price tag of about $4k.<P>I agree with the jest of your question though. Being an RB owner it seems I spend more time fixing, screwing down, re-foaming, rewinding to get the frame counter to initiate, etc., than taking pictures. I certainly don't have to horse around with that crap with some much older Nikon and Canon bodies I've used that get much more abuse.<P>It's a question of supply of demand; there simply isn't enough demand and MF cameras made to warrant R&D to make them better and more ergonomic.<P>The 120/220 film/paper design should have been retired decades ago in places of something more similiar to the 35mm cassette, and this has been a big reason that MF cameras haven't evolved in their weakest department, which is their film backs.<P>This discussion is kind of acedemic though. As mentioed above, digital cameras will render them obsolete in time.

[songster]

This is no longer related to the original post, but after reading the posts about digital, I have the following question, and I hope someone can provide their opinions.

 

It is without question that digital backs will someday replace most if not all film. However, there is still a question of how much information/resolution can be obtained when the lenses become the limiting factor. If the lenses are the limiting factor, it seems to me that it would be easier to increase the CCD/CMOS size to obtain more information rather than to improve a lens�es resolving power to match CCD/CMOS resolution (right/wrong?) So, it's the same argument again; larger image size translates into better image quality (loosely speaking). Therefore, there is still some merit in improving MF design, assuming large enough sensors can be produced to take advantage of MF image circle, right?

 

This is purely a theoretical scenario, and I do apologize for wondering off the original discussion. Can someone share your opinions?

[don_harris1]

For what it's worth, I recently did a test between a Leica m6 with a 50mm 2.0 summicron and my Pentax 645N with 45-85m lens set to 85. My Pentax lenses are every bit as sharp as my new cfi Hassy lenses. This was a studio image of my assistant. Composition in both negatives included the top of her head to the bottom of her hand as she was seated. I used Fuji Reala in the Leica and Fuji NPH in the Pentax. I shot at f8 on both cameras on a tripod. The only thing different I did was increase the flash output so I could maintain f8 on the Leica. I had the negatives processed together at my lab and had them print a 16x20 from each negative. On getting the prints back, I could tell no difference between the two. Neither could others I showed them to. It was truly amazing. Even tonality was almost identical. I really was not testing Leica vs the Pentax so much as Reala vs NPH. I might have obtained the same results using a Nikon 50. I didn't sell my Pentax but I sure did load up on Reala!

 

Don

[trooper]

As I get older and less willing to drag my P67 kit around on casual shoots, I am using my Fuji RF more and remain happy with the results. I must add though, that my old 35mm Konica lenses with Tech Pan have fooled many in 11X14 who assume they are MF. When I'm doing anything serious at all, I will always grab the big cameras, but occasionally wonder how much I'm truly gaining. I tend to "think" and shoot at a pace that works well with MF equipment and my comfort zone for having nice, printable (and croppable) negatives drives me to use the P67 for most of my work, but I'm beginning more and more to consider this being driven by paranoia.

 

I too, am so accustomed to the film loading quirks of 120/220 that a drop in system doesn't mean much to me. We'll be explaining to our grandchildren about the good old days when we "burned silver" with light and chemicals in cumbersome cameras and they'll think our tales are quaint little pieces of history....

[GerrySiegel]

The answer is obvious to me. Economics and limited production runs. MF was and still is the pro format. Pros are more willing to fuss with their equipment. Fussing meant having multiple backs and learning to load tricky 120 and 220 backs and getting them mounted on weird faces like the back end of a Bronica with a prism attached,try that in a hurry. It is slower, and is why some pros will do all their work with 35mm and slow K25 or Velvia film.( Yet,picture editors still I am told prefer to look at a big neg on the lightbox instead of peering into a loupe) MF is catching up naturally. TTL, faster loading systems and autofocus even. Because of the scale of production and the limited payback you will expect to pay a premium for the automation goodies beyond 645 (which is only quasi MF). I am thinking of the Rollei line of cameras, which is highly automated and wow big bucks. Remember too, there are people still devotedly using Linhof field cameras with sheet film and loving them for their deliberate slowness. And using Polaroid backs for proofing, another slow down mode. Saying digital will make this issue moot is just begging the question. Noone knows what the pace of development will be in the digital world and when it will take over. The transcontinental railroad was the next best thing in 1878. Now its thought of as a relic, but there are still railroads and still a place for them in transportation. I am counting on film being in the race for a long long time...Apropos of nothing: Maybe speed is not everything. Look what happened to Concorde... But I could be wrong. I voted for you know who and lost my bet last November :-)GS

[vijay_nebhrajani]

This is slightly off-topic, so sorry, but I think we should address the issue of digital replacing film in the future, particularly since it has been brought up in this thread.

 

Assume that with film - say Tech Pan 25 or whatever that allows max silver-halide resolution you get information of about 100 pixels/mm. Its actually likely to be more, but lets just take it at that. With a 56mm by 56 mm patch of film, you have information of about 56 * 56 * 100 * 100 = 31.36 megapixels.

 

Assuming that each pixel is represented as a 24 bit deep color, you get actual information content of 94.08 MB. Not a surprising figure - in the ballpark of a high resolution scan. To deliver equivalent quality, therefore, digital would have to pack 31.36 million sensors on a single chip, each allowing 24 bit deep color. Now you cannot make a chip very large because of yield problems in silicon. Assuming a size of 100 mm square (10 mm x 10 mm is a large chip indeed), we get a pixel density of 31.36 * 10^6 /100 = 313600 pixels per mm square. Converting this to a pixel size you get 1.7 microns. In a size of 1.7 microns, I have to fit the following: A photo sensor, a small 24-bit A to D convertor and a mechanism to convert random RGB dots to the 24-bit digital value. Technology is not there yet - but will probably be there sometime in the future. Foveon has a 16 megapixel chip but to realistically approach MF quality is still a few years away. The other problem is with cost. Get MF quality from digital at the cost of film equipment, and you push the replacement timeline a few more years away.

 

Another subtle problem is with lenses. It is easier to manufacture MF/LF lenses than the small lenses required for digital. Further, since MF/LF is going to be enlarged less, you will be able to get a non diffraction-limited image, but that will be harder with greater degrees of enlargement that must be done with digital. In other words, making the pixel size smaller takes you only so far... beyond that point, diffraction will cause the loss of quality, not pixel size. And small imperfections in the glass will enhance this problem for digital, but for MF/LF, the proportionate effect will be lesser. A curvature inaccuracy of a 0.01 mm (say) will cause no noticeable difference to MF, but to digital....

 

For the next 10 years at least, it is hard for me to imagine a digital alternative to MF. Digital is likely to complement, rather than replace MF. On the other hand, I will be surprised if 35 mm survives the digital onslaught. LF will probably be around for the next 20 years or more.

[erin_argast2]

MF is not outdated. The thing which makes MF what it is is not the

lenses, it is the image size. The finest 35mm lens in the universe

won't help the best 35mm camera in the universe compete-image

wise-with even a mediocre MF camera & lens. 35mm is more outdated

than MF. Those who know something about photography are moving up to

MF, and LF, while those who know little to nothing about photography

are moving down to digital, or even APS. 35mm is fading