MF vs DSLR

[weishengg]

hi all,

just curious, why are Medium Format cameras producing more superior images in studio/landscape than DSLRs?

is it just bigger sensor = better picture? or are there more things to the mix?

cheers

[Rashkae]

Usually it's the bigger sensor, plus higher dynamic range. Though recently, some comparisons were made with a hasselblad vs. Sony A900 and the differences were very very difficult to discern. Of course, the A900 also gives higher ISO options.

A Nikon D3X or Canon 5dMkII with good L glass would be close as well.

[calebk]

The dynamic range, the colour tones, the sheer resolution that you can have the flexibility to blow up to. I do believe the RAW file from a MF digital back will have a ton of bit depth.

[Reportage]

Originally Posted by weishengg hi all, just curious, why are Medium Format cameras producing more superior images in studio/landscape than DSLRs? is it just bigger sensor = better picture? or are there more things to the mix? cheers

superior picture depends on the photographer.

bigger picture depends on the equipment.

[giantcanopy]

The greater bit depth of the medium format digital backs contributes to a much wide dynamic range compared to the DSLRs in general. The highlights and shadows are better handled as well.

And if we really have to compare :

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Ryan

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Usually it's the bigger sensor, plus higher dynamic range. Though recently, some comparisons were made with a hasselblad vs. Sony A900 and the differences were very very difficult to discern. Of course, the A900 also gives higher ISO options. A Nikon D3X or Canon 5dMkII with good L glass would be close as well.

Though the A900 gives higher ISO up to 6400, at 1600 is already quite noisy.

[Rashkae]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle Though the A900 gives higher ISO up to 6400, at 1600 is already quite noisy.

Correct, though at least you have that option, compared to MF which usually tops out at 400.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by Rashkae Correct, though at least you have that option, compared to MF which usually tops out at 400.

I suppose due to its much larger sensor. Imagine MF has ISO 3200, can't really see a lot of stuffs. Or maybe it's to preserve picture quality that it is limited to ISO 400.

[Rashkae]

This is a nice comparison too:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=29852201

[melvinchen]

theoretically, many medium formats are also SLR/DSLRs....eg. Hasselblads..

so maybe it should be MF vs 35mm digital.

Very obviously, MF is superior, due to lower pixel density = lower noise + more detail (more total pixel count).

The lenses, the larger image plane (resulting in lower depth of field), etc. all means that medium format images will look alot better than even the best FX DSLR.