Tag Archives: mf

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.

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

More Thoughts About the Pentax 645D ‘mini MF’ Camera

4 Comments

I responded to a post today in an interesting forum discussion about the new Pentax 645D “medium format” (or, as I prefer to call it, “mini MF” format) digital camera. This is a potentially game-changing camera. I has a 33mm x 44mm 40MP sensor and a body-only price of under $10,000. Its cost is far below that of competing mini MF bodies and a fraction of the cost of recent larger MF systems – and the price isn’t much above that of the high end full frame DSLR systems. While larger is not always better, for some types of photographers this puts a level and type of digital camera performance within reach.

In the discussion forum thread I referred to above, a writer had suggested that the 1.7x size differential between the Pentax 645D and full frame DSLRs would not be significant. In a sense he is right – it will not be significant to most photographers, and I surely cannot imagine why anyone would get one in order to make family photos to post on the web. However, I thought I’d share what I wrote concerning why I think that this might be significant for at least some photographers. My response (slightly edited) follows:

Photosite density is rarely the limiting factor when it comes to maximum print size from DSLR originals. As [the other poster] points out, “technique” stuff tends to be much more critical. Enlargement limits are more likely the result of stuff like camera movement, slight mis-focus, lens issues, etc.

I disagree that the size difference between the 24mm x 36mm full frame DSLR sensor and the 33mm x 44mm “mini MF” sensor isn’t significant. There are several reasons I feel this is the case: Continue reading More Thoughts About the Pentax 645D ‘mini MF’ Camera →

Commentary, Equipment

Wherever We Are Headed, We Certainly Are Not There Yet

Leave a comment

Contrary to those who feel that with the introduction of multiple reasonably-priced 20+MP full frame DSLR camera there isn’t much room left for advancement and change, I think that the camera market is still truly dynamic.

One assumption that many make is that the high photosite density full-frame DSLR cameras will “take over” the part of the photographic world previously occupied by medium format (MF) film cameras. Several observations seem to support this notion. The resolution available from carefully used high end DSLRs with the best lenses certainly can compete with that of medium format film, and the arguable advantages of the larger format in terms of image quality would not be enough to convince many to give up the conveniences and lens choices of the best DSLR systems. Even those who might prefer to shoot medium format digital back systems – and I count myself as among those who are interested – are often not in a position to be able to afford the stratospheric cost of the best medium format systems, despite the fact that they compete with large format for image quality.

Some have argued that the costs of the high end systems cannot possibly come down. Some argue (falsely, I believe) that the high costs can not drop because, unlike the costs of computer memory, they are determined by factors that are not subject to scaling. Some argue that the market will never be big enough. However, these folks made the same arguments about the very types of cameras that are now becoming available in the DSLR market – the 20MP and higher full frame sensor camera. Not long ago these cameras cost roughly $8000 and were available from only one manufacturer. They now cost a third of this and are available from at least three vendors.

If you think this cannot happen in the medium format market, perhaps you need to watch a bit more closely. Recently Mamiya introduced a basic medium format digital system (admittedly not one defining the high end of this market segment) at a cost of around $14,000 if memory serves. This week Phase One announced 40 MP medium format backs at cost in roughly the upper teens ($15,000 or thereabouts) range. There are certainly higher priced backs available, but it was only a year or two ago that the 35MP MF backs were the high end – and cost perhaps two or three times this much.

It seems to me that these developments are moving toward bringing MF digital systems to a price point where some who might now get a high-end DSLR system may be able to instead think about going MF.

(Note added later: I just want to acknowledge that I do understand that there are reasons besides pixel dimensions – e.g. number of photosites/MP – to choose MF, and that I also understand that there are reasons other than cost to choose a DSLR. :-)

Equipment

One Can Dream, Right?

Leave a comment

For a report on an entirely different category of camera than most of us use, take a look at Michael Reichmann’s review of the Phase One P65+, 645 Camera, and Lenses. This is a medium format system that includes a Phase One/Mamiya medium format body, a 60MP true medium format digital back, and a lens system. Today it costs as much as a very, very nice car. One can hope that something equivalent may eventually be available for a price that the rest of us can contemplate affording.