Medium format systems are widely known as being the best, producing the most detailed and technically superior images. The lenses are supposedly the best available too, such as the 40mm from Rodenstock which is praised for its amazing performance. If you want the best in image quality, the widest dynamic range, and the deepest depth of field with the least amount of diffraction, then medium format is the answer... or is it? Is this simply perception? If you repeat something enough does it become fact? How many people who believe this to be true have actually tried and compared the best from medium format to the best available from full frame?
Over the last few years I have been using medium-format cameras to find out exactly what they are capable of. Aside from resolution, which some would say is overrated, many of the claims are unfounded. This is particularly true when comparing lenses. Even lenses like the 40mm from Rodenstock don't hold up to the best available from full frame.
In the video above, I demonstrate how the Canon 24mm Tilt-Shift lens outperforms the Rodenstock at pretty much every aperture. The Rodenstock suffers from noticeably more diffraction and is overall a softer and worse performing lens. This may come as a surprise to many, however, if you're not convinced, I urge you to try it for yourself.
Sorry to be joining this fascinating conversation so late. Usman: thanks for starting it and for your valuable contribution. And thanks all the others as well.
The subject is of vital interest to me as I have made -and continue to make- my living as an architectural photographer (www.andreabrizzi.com).
Quality is my bottom line. Otherwise my clients have their iPhones.
I use both a Canon 5Dsr with TSE lenses and an Arca Swiss Mr3di with Phase One and Rodenstock. While I trust Usman's technical comparisons and conclusions, I still think that MF has an intangible look that is superior to that of a 35mm. This even when images are viewed on a smartphone.
Or maybe it's all in my head.
One note about costs. Not only the initial expense of a MF system is far higher than 35.
The real cost of the equipment is, for me, depreciation, as I usually sell or trade my old gear before buying the new.
Because PhaseOne releases new products every year, their back tends to lose value very quickly, when compared to a Canon body which -in my experience- hold its value much better over the years.
Any thoughts on this?
A question: to get around the Copal shutters dilemma, Jeffrey at Foto Care in New York has suggested I look at the Alpa FPS camera combined with Phase One and Canon TSEs. Has anyone tried that combination? Very intriguing to me.
Thanks!
Andrea
"I still think that MF has an intangible look that is superior to that of a 35mm"
I don't think it's intangible, I think there are specific things about Phase One cameras that make them better. This comparison that I did was more about the lens as opposed to the camera itself.
Phase One cameras produce 16-bit raw files and color to me is a big deal. That level of detail in color cannot be achieved with full frame. The highlight recovery of medium format is still significantly better than the best full frame cameras.
Lens wise, I'd say it's debatable because there are plenty of super high-quality lenses available for full frame that will outperform many modern medium format lenses.
Finally, it comes down to you as an individual. Nothing is expensive and nothing is cheap it's all relative value. If you think a camera is good value for money based on the kind of work you do then it's worth it. I just had a look at some of your work and it's absolutely beautiful.
Thank you for sharing :).
i love this