A simple question, to which I think I know the answer.
Why do some high end areas of photography like art, fashion and architecture, use 100MP+ medium format cameras?
I believe the reason is that the file you produce with these cameras or backs have better colour and tonal transitions, compared to smaller formats. Probably post processing comes into the mix too.
It's also because that's the latest and greatest. Go back 10 years - what did fashion & art use then? Did anyone complain? What did magazine editors insist on back then? Has magzine or printing quality improved because of 100mp images?
Alan
[Awake because he watched the Fuji X-Summit announcements]
HAND.
I disagree, with you to a certain extent.
Steve Monks, who posts here on the weekly thread, uses a Fujifilm GFX100S, and he seems to think the files produce results that are an improvement technically on the Z7 he also uses.
Personally what I use now is good enough for my uses.
But as I said above, I believe the improved tonal and colour transitions as well as file workability are the reasons that these cameras are employed.
Horses for courses. Were I earning my living from photographing I would undoubtedly have a different opinion, but in my case, MF cameras like the Fuji 100MP series cost more than I am prepared to spend, though I agree that the colours and clarity are superb. The FF Canon R6 that I have is heavy if I also take more than one lens with me. However, a Canon telephoto lens and Laowa 15mm shift lens allow me to take photos that I otherwise could not take. For everything else I am happier with the Leica Q3 fixed 28mm lens and 60 MP sensor, which I persuaded myself to afford, and which is relatively lightweight!
David
A lot of it is so that the editorial team can crop the sh!t out of the images, to suit their perspective or usage scenario, & still have a very usable image. My sister shot photo's for Texaco I think, for one of their ad campaigns, she showed me the originals & you would hardly recognize them in the ads.
There's a lot of history hidden by survivorship bias. If someone used a 40MP MF camera and got a lot of moiré, that photo will probably never be shown to you. The photographer may have done it again, stopping down a little more than they wanted, for diffraction to work as a(n inefficient) AA filter. So, the photographer had to make a compromise to get a tolerable image, but you are shielded from that fact by survivorship bias. With a 150MP MF, the photographer may have been able to use their intended f-number.
Is it possible to quantify "better" in the above context?
In other words, what is the metric for 'color transition' or for 'tonal transition'?
Bearing in mind that smaller formats can have a much greater pixel density than MF for example Panasonic DC-G9 versus Fujifilm GFX-100, where do the "better transitions" come from?
The larger sensor has the potential to capture more total light and all the goodness that comes with that.
Back in the film era, many professionals did studio work, landscape, wedding and fashion photography with medium format. If you've seen a landscape print from a medium or large format film body, you know the attraction of working with larger formats.
David Burnett has used a Speed Graphic film camera to cover US presidential campaigns and the Olympics.
More total light translates to greater dynamic range, less noise, and improved color fidelity, all of which can be measured.
Thanks Bill. Is it possible to be more specific, particularly how "total light" affects "color fidelity"?
I'm a bit bothered by the oft-said "captures more light" thing because, although a larger sensor captures more photons, the amount captured per unit area is not dependent on sensor size all other things being equal.
I briefly used 5x4 film. A well exposed and nicely printed 5 x4 photograph is a thing of beauty, with those creamy tonal and colour transitions.
Make a picture that includes some very subtle colour and tonal transitions, (a sandstone canyon for example) with M43 and FF or even better MF. Compare the results and you will see the difference with your own eyes, which is the thing that counts.
What are the viewing conditions? If you are viewing full-sensor images at the same visible size, IQ per unit of sensor area is not directly relevant.
I am claiming that the IQ of an equal-framing crop from MF is the same as a full-sensor µ4/3 image, all other things being equal.
Your "at the same visible size" implies re-sampling which obviously affects IQ.
Like yourself, I am stuck in a wheelchair with barely functioning hands, so can't do that, sorry to say.
In any case, I was hoping for numbers rather than how something looks through my 84 year-old eyes ...
While exposure across different formats can be the same, the different surface areas result in different total amounts of light being captured.
Noise (variability in the light received from the scene) is proportional to the square root of total light. The more light captured, the better the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The better the SNR, the more accurately detail, tonality, and color are rendered in the photo.
they dont actually. if you look at Dustin Abbots reviews the a7iv can out perform all MF cameras in DR and shadow recovery.
