DJ72

Is it worth thinking about a medium format camera?

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, wiskerke said:

Large sensors and high pixel counts,as they will expose every flaw, will demand really good (read expensive) lenses and impeccable shooting technique to produce better images in bigger sizes.

wim

 

Agreed, but you do not have to output at high pixel counts because you have a high pixel count camera.

I have a 50 megapixel 5Ds with all of my normal to wide angle lenses Zeiss primes. I also shoot with a 70-200 Canon F4 L zoom lens and a 400 mm Canon F5.6 L prime lens.

 

I think of the camera as an information gatherer and not a 50 megapixel camera. So depending on the situation I may crop into the frame down to 20 megapixel in order to extend the range of my telephoto. Or I may downsize the entire frame to 20 megapixel in order to suppress artifacts like noise. Under ideal conditions I will output the full 50 megapixels.

 

The bird example below was shot quickly handheld at 200mm ISO 400 and cropped to about 20 megapixels in order to extend the 200mm telephoto to 400 mm. On the raw the centre of the 50 megapixel image is the birds eye. Autofocus at 1/2 press of shutter with the birds eye centered on autofocus point. The F5.6 aperture at 200mm means the depth of field covers most of the bird. I get more success with this 200 mm setup cropped to 20 megapixel, than with the heavier unwieldy 400 mm full frame output at either 20 or 50 megapixels.

northern-cardinal-cardinalis-cardinalis-

The tree bark is shot with the 70-200 F4 lens around 80mm handheld braced against another tree iso 400 at (F11 to eliminate slight lens decentering that will show up at F4 at 50 megapixels). Full 50 megapixels full frame output. Viewed at 100% you can discern individual grains of dirt on the bark.

gnarled-lumpy-bumpy-rough-knobbly-knotte

The condo towers shot with a 400mm prime handheld ISO 800? across water. Full frame downsized (not cropped) to around 20 megapixels to suppress the slight wavy heat distortion showing up at 50 megapixels.

condominium-apartments-a-high-rise-high-

Scenics on a tripod prime lens iso 100 mirror locked up F11 for depth of field output to full frame at 50 megapixels.

grenadier-pond-in-high-park-in-toronto-o

So 5Ds is a versatile camera when used at full frame 50 megapixel or cropped or downsized to 20 megapixel.

I also use my small Sony RX100. One size camera does not fit every situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full frame. You either love ‘em or you hate ‘em.

 I hated mine. Was never so happy as to go back to a crop camera.

weight

heavy lenses

upgraded lenses

extra care with technique

everything seemed so far away...I know, I know, about cropping. Hated to have to do that. 

 Focasing sharply on a bird’s eye is easier on a “C” camera because the eye is bigger!

But those who love them, love them. 

That’s what makes the world go around.

I think if I were mostly a landscape shooter, I would have liked it more. Landscapes in my neck of the woods? :P

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Full frame. You either love ‘em or you hate ‘em.

 I hated mine. Was never so happy as to go back to a crop camera.

weight

heavy lenses

upgraded lenses

extra care with technique

everything seemed so far away...I know, I know, about cropping. Hated to have to do that. 

 Focasing sharply on a bird’s eye is easier on a “C” camera because the eye is bigger!

But those who love them, love them. 

That’s what makes the world go around.

I think if I were mostly a landscape shooter, I would have liked it more. Landscapes in my neck of the woods? :P

Betty

 

Wish I had your talent shooting birds Betty - for me landscapes and architecture have always been a passion so I'm enjoying getting to know my little full frame Sony mirrorless and it weighs next to nothing - about the same as my Olympus micro-four-thirds and with the lenses I've bought not terribly heavy. Biggest one (the 90mm macro - not for landscapes) makes the entire setup about 2 pounds. Even I can cart that around. But all the other lenses even with adapters are much lighter. I opted for f/2.8 over 1.4 for some to keep it light. 

 

Any longer teles/zooms I purchase will probably be for the Olympus because yes, when you get into tele/zoom lenses the weight of the Sony can climb too high. 

 

I sold my 7 1/2 pound monster 50-500mm Sigma (for Nikon) to a bird and wildlife shooter who was looking for a light alternative zoom to take on Safari to Africa.

 

I'm firmly in the mirrorless camp with you, and glad that I have a light full frame alternative - but I'm sticking with mostly wide primes so I can keep the weight down. For the work you do, I can see why even a mirrorless a full frame alternative would be a literal pain in the neck (and back). 

Edited by Marianne
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marianne, you live in a beautiful part of the U.S. Lighthouses, landscapes, I would be shooting the same things you shoot. Giving you competition!! :D I love all the coastlines. Of course, I’d be after shorebirds, too......

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now