Full Frame v. Med. Format digital images side by side

Soocom1

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,253
Reaction score
1,489
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Has anyone taken photos with a Full Frame 35mm DSRL and compared it to a Med. Format Digital image?

What I am wanting to do is compare the specific image difference between the two.
No need for specific comments about them per se, I would like to see an actual side by side comparison of the two of the same image.
 
Interesting video that compares side by side
 
Did you notice something?
The one item I have talked about at length is the distortion brought on by the aspect ratio.

Look at the adjustable triangle in the top LH corner.
The 35mm is distorted more.
 
I would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this aspect ratio distortion. I thought you brought it up a while back, and I have not heard much about it, I would be eager to hear what it is that you were talking about
 
OK.
To go into that will take a bit of explaining, and I know some do not have the patients for it.

but Ill write it up shortly and post it.
 
Did you notice something?

Look at the adjustable triangle in the top LH corner.
The 35mm is distorted more.

The only distortion I'm seeing is the DOF, difference and the cropping because of the frame being more narrow, unless I'm missing something????
 
The triangle isn't fully in the frame on the 35mm side. It's left edge is cut off.
 
The triangle isn't fully in the frame on the 35mm side. It's left edge is cut off.

Well yeah, but so is everything on the left side and the right side as well. The OP specifically said distortion on the triangle.
 
At 1;39, they are talking about the f16. Carefully look at the image from the 35mm (r-h side) and then the image from the med. format. Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.
 
But more to the point: there are other reasons I am asking this question:
Modern Dig. MF isnt true 645 or 6x6 or 6x9.
It is only marginally larger than 35mm and I wonder to the proclaimed image quality as a result.
we have this argument regularly on APS v FF, so I wonder the same about FF v MF.
 
Last time I shot both side by side was 6 years ago or so and MF blew the lid off full frame dslrs. Since then the resolution on DSLRs has gotten way better but at the same time so has MF. I would venture a guess that MF would still reign supreme just because of the physical size of the sensor. Its a shame they don't put out 645, 66 or 67 sizes though.

I poke through fashion photography more than anything and a lot of the photographers still shoot MF. The images are incredible but honestly you have to really nit pick the image to see the difference. At normal viewing, you'd be hard pressed to call it either way.
 
Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.

Okay, I clipped the triangle out, overlayed one on the other, sharpened, and I'm not seeing any distortion other than the effect of the DOF and the difference in the cropping (note the circled area)
ad1234.jpg
 
At 1;39, they are talking about the f16. Carefully look at the image from the 35mm (r-h side) and then the image from the med. format. Dont focus on the truncation of the image, look at the triangle itself. It shows a more skewed image.

It shows that the two cameras were in different places taking the two photos from different points of view. They made no effort to set that up so the camera positions would be the same. It's also being done with digital images in which software processing to compensate for lens distortion is active. To claim any distortion variation due to aspect ratio you have to run a valid test. This isn't close to being such a test.

Joe
 
As far as side-by-side comparisons, when the Fuji GFX 50 was released dPreview did a couple of articles on comparing it against Canon and Nikon and Sony full frame digital single lens reflex cameras.

As you might be aware medium format has recently been reduced in size to 44 x 33 mm in the majority of cases. At roughly the $10,000 price point Hasselblad,Fuji, and Pentax have released 44 x 33 mm "medium format cameras. Over the last few years 24 x 36 mm camera offerings have hit 50 megapixels in the case of Canon and around 45 to 42 megapixels in the case of Sony and Nikon.

Anyway, I remember Reading a dPreview article that had photos of the same scenes shot with both medium format and full frame cameras, and that there was not that much difference.
 
Last edited:
Interesting video that compares side by side

OK. Ill see your crop and raise you a GIS system:

hXQMW0u.jpg


The images are exactly the same, but I overlaid a single point of the 35mm with the Hasselblad image atop it. (Red frame)

The images have NOT been reduced or changed. Simply overlaid. (The red No "1" with the cross hairs.)
Look at the vernier calipers as well, the circle templates below, the french curve, etc.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top