Tag Archives: medium

Equipment, Tests

Format Size Comparison Data

Image Leave a comment

The following charts summarize various data that are useful when comparing formats, either film or digital. (Not all possible comparisons are shown.) Some additional background regarding some of the traditional film formats known as “medium format” is found at the end of this post.

Basic Formats Data

Comparisons Normalized to Full Frame Format

Comparisons Normalized to miniMF 33×44 Format

Comparisons Normalized to 645 Medium Format Film

Comparisons Normalized to Full Frame at 4:3 Crop

Comparisons of Square Formats Normalized to 6×6 Medium Format Film

Comparions Normalized to 6×17 “Panoramic” Medium Format Film

Visual Comparison

The following illustration shows the relative sizes of some common digital and film formats. (Not all variations are shown.) The leftmost group includes common digital formats. The next group — indicated in yellow — includes common traditional formats collectively known as “medium format” film. At the far right is 4×5 “large format” film.

A chart showing the relative sizes of several digital and film photography formats ranging from micro-four-thirds to 4x5 film
A chart showing the relative sizes of several digital and film photography formats ranging from micro-four-thirds to 4×5 film

Notes on this illustration:

  • 645 film is shown in both the “landscape” and “portrait” orientations in order to make clear that it shares the 56mm dimension with the other types of medium format film. (The portrait version is partially hidden the landscape version.)
  • There are multiple variations on “large format film.” Shown here is the most common 4″ x 5″ size, the smallest of the large format film formats typically still in use.

About Medium Format Film

While those of us who have “done photography” for a long time are familiar with the traditional “medium formats,” those without that perspective may be less (or not at all) familiar with the meaning of the term. Medium format” traditionally (for many decades) referred to film formats using (primarily) 120/220 film with a 6cm (60mm) physical width. While details of these formats are included in the tables above, here is a brief contextual overview:

  • 645 format (1) is the smallest of the traditional common film medium formats. It is named based on “6cm x 4.5cm.” In actual use the frame size is slightly smaller than the 6cm film width at about 56mm. (This is typical of film medium formats — the “6” always refers to the physical film width, not the smaller actual image size.)
  • 6×6 format produces a square image of approximately 56mm x 56mm, and is the next larger film medium format above 645.
  • 6×7 format uses the 56mm width-determined dimension for its shorter side, and thus has a larger area than 6×6. (It approximately replicates the 5:4 aspect ratio of LF film.)
  • 6×9 format also keeps the 56mm dimension its shorter side, but expands the longer dimension to produce a 3:2 aspect ratio – like 35mm film and full frame digital.
  • 6×17 format (also known as “panoramic format”) is the largest common medium format. It also uses the 56mm dimension for its short side but greatly extends the long dimension to produce a 3:1 aspect ratio.

(1) While Pentax names its miniMF digital cameras using the “645” term, they do not use 645 format sensors. They use 33mm x 44mm sensors, just like Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and others. Additional note: On a few occasions, Fujifilm has referred to 33mm x 44mm format as “super full frame.”

(For comparison purposes, note that the dimension that is 56mm on 645 film format is 44mm on miniMF. When comparing to the other medium formats, the analogous comparison is between 56mm and 33mm.)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.

Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email

Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment

Mini Medium Format… or Not?

5 Comments

A photographer and friend asked me for my thoughts on mini medium format, or “miniMF,” camera systems. I told her the answer was complex and that I’d write it up at the blog. Here it is!

I have attempted to include several things in the article: a bit of background regarding formats, some objective facts (“the numbers”) about them and their relationships, pluses and minuses of various options, my own current subjective thoughts on what this means to me, and a few alternative perspectives.

The evolution of digital medium format cameras has been among the most interesting photographic developments over the past few years. High MP backs from companies like Phase One and Leaf became the high-end standard for digital image making, and other companies have recently entered the market. The larger sensors may provide improved image quality in several ways: greater system resolution, greater pixel resolution, improved dynamic range, less noise, and more.

It wasn’t that long ago that digital formats larger than full frame were out of reach for nearly all photographers, with costs that were frequently many tens of thousands of dollars, often for only the digital back, which had to be attached to a medium format body.

However, in the last few years several manufacturers have driven down the cost of camera systems using larger-than-full-frame sensors, and now digital “medium format” (more on that term in a moment) bodies are available for less than $7000. A range of manufacturers are now in this market, including Fujifilm, Pentax, and Hasselblad.

When the costs of larger sensor bodies were in the mid-$20k and up (sometimes very up) range, few photographers using full frame DSLR or mirrorless cameras could realistically consider them as options. But the current $6500-$9000 price isn’t that much higher than the most expensive full frame bodies. At these prices the potential improvements in image quality are enough to make folks take a closer look, especially if they are photographers who produce large and high quality prints on a regular basis.

I began to pay attention when the miniMF Pentax 645d came out some years ago (though I was a bit disappointed to find out that the sensor wasn’t really “645” size), and my interest only increased as Pentax updated to the 645z and then as Fujifilm and Hasselblad brought out competing products. I thought a lot about the possible value of such systems for my photography, and I considered getting one. I haven’t done ao — though I won’t rule it out in the future — but I would like to share some of my musings about the choices. Continue reading Mini Medium Format… or Not? →

Equipment

Comparing 33 x 44mm “miniMF” and 24 x 36mm Full Frame Sensors

Leave a comment

Comparing Full Frame and miniMF Sensors
Comparing full frame 24mm x 36mm and Fujifilm mini-MF 33.8mm x 43.8mm sensors

Starting a few years ago with cameras like the Pentax 645d and then 645z and continuing with new cameras from Hasselblad and Fujifilm, systems using  the “miniMF” 33mm x 44mm sensors have become more readily available and less expensive.

In preparation for writing something about the merits of the two types of systems I created this image that holds quite a bit of technical comparison data based on pixel counts (e.g. — “megapixels”), sensor size, and ways of comparing them.

For now I won’t try to analyze this too much, except to say that comparisons between the two formats are more complicated than you might think and they are somewhat subjective — it matters how you plan to use them. For example, do you prefer to use the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame,  or the 4:3 ratio of miniMF, or will you adapt to whichever you are using? This chart shows you how that affects your comparisons.

NOTE: The graphic is a first attempt at including a lot of information in a single chart. It has some problems, especially with the numbers representing crop factor. I’ll update the image to correct the errors before long, and at that point I’ll use it in a more substantive post about comparing the formats.

© Copyright 2016 G Dan Mitchell – all rights reserved.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | LinkedIn | Email

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

News, Photographers, Stories

‘From Film Holder to Memory Card’ at TOP

4 Comments

The Online Photographer (a.k.a. “TOP”) is one of the blogs I follow regularly – lots of great thought-provoking posts show up there on a regular basis, frequently written by folks who know what they are talking about. Take a look if you don’t already follow TOP.

I enjoyed a recent article (“From Film Holder to Memory Card”) by photographer Charles Cramer in which he describes his transition from large format film gear to using medium format digital systems. My favorite example of Charlie’s ironic humor in the post is his “apology” to those who haven’t made the switch: “Note to my large format friends: O.K., I sold out—but I get to use zoom lenses!!!”

In any case, this post is another data point to consider if you happen to be one of those folks who is certain that great photography must be created using traditional film gear and processes. While there is absolutely no question that great work can still be done that way, it is equally possible to do wonderful photography with newer technologies… and, as Charlie illustrates, there are some things that can simply be done more effectively, less expensively, and with better results.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.