Do medium format cameras have a specific look? Do Micro 4/3 camera take horrible still photos? You tell me.
I happen to have a range of different cameras in my possession and I thought it would be interesting to shoot the same image with each of them to see if we could actually tell a difference. This is not a resolution test, we will do that in another video. This test is strictly to determine if images inherently different coming from different sized sensors and manufacturers.
I stood in one spot and shot my buddy Keith Bradshaw with 4 different cameras with 4 different sized sensors. To keep the field of view the same, I used a 50mm "equivalent" lens on each camera. To keep the depth of field the same, I changed the aperture as well. My cameras and settings are below.
FujiFilm GFX 50R/ 43.mm x 32.9mm sensor/ 64mm lens f/8
Canon 6D/ 35mm ff sensor/ 50mm f5.6
FujiFilm XT-3/ 23.6mm x 15.6mm sensor/ 35mm f4
Panasonic GH5/ Micro 4/3 sensor/ 25mm f2.8
I shot each of the images below in raw, I changed only the white balance, and stacked the images on top of each other. I cropped in on all of the images to hide the 4/3 aspect ratio of the GFX and GH5 and shrunk them to 1920 pixels in width. Can you guess which camera took each image?
UPDATE: The results are in.
I'm not a hobbyist. And as someone who has cameras in m43, APSC, 35mm and miniMF I have no prejudice toward any system. Sure the vast amount of people who don't print might not need a larger sensor. But the test doesn't once mention that that's it's intention. If it said "a comparison of different sensors when the output is 1900px images on the web", it'd be valid. What it said was "This test is strictly to determine if images inherently different coming from different sized sensors and manufacturers." If you homogenise the images, as has been done here, you're not doing what they claim to be testing. To do that you need to test where they are different, not where they are the same.
Kind of like doing the same with an A73 and A7R3 and then saying there's no difference.
Gordon
There are endless comparisons on the web slicing and dicing images in any manner of ways to show certain points. What is also lost here is the viewing distance of the image at any size on any media.
I have cropped a vertical image out of a 6MP file that was used at stunning quality on a billboard 60 feet wide. I have also had clients use an 1800 pixel wide image on another 40 foot wide billboard.
While it is true that differences will be evident at the pixel level what this test shows is that even if we had a crowd looking at these images printed billboard size, at the appropriate viewing distance the guesses would be just as distributed.
They all look fine to me. EXIF data says they were all shot at the same time with a Canon EOS 6D, f/5.6, 1/200 sec, ISO-400 @ 50mm. I wouldn't be surprised if this was accurate...
Oh, I LOVE this. Incoming excuses next week. 🤣
In all fairness, doing it in low light would probably make it easier.
While the test may be imperfect, there is a fairly broad dynamic range here, so it isn't as horrible a test as some might think. Camera 1 seems to have retained better detail in the highlights. Other than that and some slight color rendition variations there are no discernable differences. No photo is objectively better or worse than the others.
Good job, Lee.
It's so hard to try and compare different sensor sizes. There are so many variables that people will scream about and and use to point out why this is completely useless. However, I still see the validation in these kinds of comparisons. I think the point it tries to illustrate is a good one. We often times split hairs about the differences in sensor size, image quality or a "look" when in reality, most of all this doesn't make an iota of difference for MOST people who are publishing their work on social media and the like. Will there be some big differences in the extreme scenarios (like shooting at ISO 12,800, pushing and pulling shadows and highlights by multiple stops)? Absolutely. Even then, things like dynamic range and ISO performance can yield negligible differences in the non-extreme cases. Shallow depth of field would probably be the biggest giveaway in normal scenarios if you were to use the fastest "portrait" lens for each system. You'd certainly be able to tell the difference between the 42.5mm 1.2 on the GH5, the 56mm 1.2 on the X-T3, the 85mm 1.2 on the Canon and the 110mm f/2 on the GFX. Even then, that's one aspect of all of this and again we would be splitting hairs between platforms (don't get me started on people who point to the ability to achieve MAXIMUM SDOF for the reason to go with XY or Z sensor size).
FStoopers ... Blow up these images to 16x24 equivalent and then give us the test ..
Blow all of them to 20x24 or bigger (or even as-is out of camera) and then ask us.
As per the article, m4/3 is all everyone need.
To be fair, I think the medium format look thing is overblown, in digital anyway. The sensor size is smaller than the smallest "true" medium format equivalent on film, so all the benefits of a medium format sensor (tonal, resolution, color fidelity, dynamic range, etc.) have little to do with the "look." If you put a GFX shot against a 6x45 film shot, the GFX will blow away the film shot in every area except one: the medium format look. The sensor just isn't big enough for that.
Well, that is not what people talks about the MF look. You are talking about the wrong topic. Most people are talking about the background separation of MF. Resolution, tone, DR, sharpness, etc aren't relevant and they are obviously different.
Those MF look believers think that MF has different background separation than 35mm FF camera because it has a longer focal length or bigger sensor size. Such as 50mm F1.4 and 80mm F2.8 has similar FOV but 80mm is more telephoto which differentiates between 35mm FF and MF. This is what they are believing but the problem is that they were never ever able to prove this hype. This is the real reason for debating about the MF look.
You might want to reread my response.
Long side = 1920 - of course they all look he same. You could toss in a Nikon D1 (resolution of 2,000 × 1,312) into the mix as well and ask if there has been any qualitative change over the past 20 years of digital photography.
Yes, we can tell which camera took which picture. If you cropped at the biggest, full-sized resolution that's common among all of them.
Leaving this here for posterity:
1. is Canon 6D because of shitty white balance.
2. is GFX 50R because of the medium format look (and the best looking).
3. is GH5 because of the rough bokeh.
4. is XT-3 because of the Fuji colours creeping in from below(on the hands).
Bring the next week, I want to make a fool of myself(or not).
You are 100% wrong :)
Then I'm 100% disappointed :))
I think the only thing that might give it away is the color character of each brand. So to that end, I think:
1. GH5
2. XT3
3. GFX
4. Canon
Just saw the results video. NAILED IT!
The way this was shot, it is the same as taking a Ferrari, a minivan, a pickup, and a compact car and drag racing them. But, you make them all go 0-60 in ten seconds and ask which one is the fastest.
Your test was to make the images look exactly the same and ask what the difference is. To make this a proper test, reshoot them. Do a full body portrait. Wide open. This will show the differences in sensor size/design and focal length.
What does “wide open” mean? Every camera shot at f4? That’s the widest lens I have on medium format.
It won't gonna be different.
I love blind tests, thanks for doing this! Because we publish educational videos showing photographers how to effectively use crop factor to predict the results they'll get from a specific camera and lens combination, we get comments from lots of people who think larger sensors (especially medium format cameras) have some mystical traits like "compression" and "3d pop" or something about "color". The medium format camera companies reinforce this mysticism and charge thousands for it. All our (internal) blind tests showed that accounting for crop factor completely eliminated perceptible differences in the final image.
But that's the whole point. If you wanted a cropped factor image then you'd use a cropped sensor. The reason you go for full frame (or medium format) is for the enhance DR, high ISO capabilities, mega pixels (if that's your thing), and dof at relative distance. If you're going to take a portrait at f8 then crop the heck out of it, sure buy a m4/3 camera. This test is, if not pointless, then very misleading.
By that logic, all shooters who post online would require nothing other than their phone or m4/3(most of the web pictures are 72p and not more than 2048 pixels, unless you provide originals)
While CMF (cropped medium format) is not that "mythical", it produces larger output than FF, perhaps with better DR (3 stops I believe), etc...
Each format has it's application and if you try to compare the output of the larger camera to a smaller one down-sampled to the application of the smaller camera, of course, you are not going to find anything different.
That being said, time for me to pickup my GFX-50S and shoot my kids playing in the backyard to view on my 720p digital photo frame :-D
That you can get similar results from 4 very size camera sensors, using lenses of different focal lengths and apertures is... hardly a discovery.
You may as well have blindfolded and put ear muffs on a person, drove them from 0-60 mph in exactly 10 seconds in a Volkswagen Beetle, a Honda Accord, a Porsche, and a Mclaren F1 and then asked them which car they were riding in each time.
This... really doesn't make any sense. Of course you're not going to get a 'full frame' or 'medium format' look when you're doing EVERYTHING TO MITIGATE THE DIFFERENCES BOTH IN CAMERA AND IN POST (including cropping). C'mon.
Hahaha. How ridiculous and pointless.
They all look fine. Without a doubt you can make a great image on almost any camera today, but it's when a camera's limits are pushed that we see the need the differences. Obviously the message here is nearly any camera will get many jobs done depending on your needs.
In this competition I found myself trying to guess based on bokeh quality in the bottom right hand corner of the images (there's a bit of noticeable difference there where most of the rest of the images are indiscernible in my opinion), and white balance/colours. While colour preferences are all super subjective, I've always found Canon to be a bit on the cool side compared to Fuji, so I was betting the two that had most similar white balance would be the two Fujis and the coolest one would be the 6D. With that said, you can see the light is moving, during the shooting process, so I suspect that it's far from a perfect measure. Absolutely nothing to do with image quality, and everything to do with a bit of past experience. I was betting 1 - GH5, 2 - XT3, 3 - GFX, 4 - 6D based on that, but again, noting but a huge guess.
"This test is strictly to determine if images [are] inherently different coming from different sized sensors and manufacturers."
Well I'm in agreeance with those that are saying with the cropping and the compression that this doesn't prove a lot... I know I'm not buying a GFX camera for my stock-images portfolio... Unless of course I take a frame and then don't crop out the bits that give medium format images their depth. Depth that is useful for copy space. Conversly, images have sold from my Google Nexus 5 and from a Canon 5D3. Everyone is making awesome glass that superscedes the argument you used to be able to make against the difference in depth between sensor sizes.
But you can still spot the differences in the color... Shadow details getting lost... Very surprised by the poll results and can't wait to see the video!
The first thing I looked for was those Canon greens and reds. The rest I believe can be picked out by the lens length and bokeh. Some are close though. My picks seem to be on par with the top two picks as others. Which one is better though? Honestly doesn't matter.
If television has taught me anything it’s that we can endlessly enhance the image and find the answers using the reflections in is eyes... enhance.... enhance... enhance...
pretty easy to guess based on the aperture settings without looking at anything else
I like how so many people are complaining about “cropping” as if that has any effect on the aesthetics of the image after the camera was positioned and the photo was taken.
That you can get similar results from 4 very size camera sensors, using lenses of different focal lengths and apertures is... hardly a discovery.
You may as well have blindfolded and put ear muffs on a person, drove them from 0-60 mph in exactly 10 seconds in a Volkswagen Beetle, a Honda Accord, a Porsche, and a Mclaren F1 and then asked them which car they were riding in each time.
This... really doesn't make any sense. Of course you're not going to get a 'full frame' or 'medium format' look when you're doing EVERYTHING TO MITIGATE THE DIFFERENCES BOTH IN CAMERA AND IN POST (including cropping). C'mon.
So you are saying medium format Doesn’t have a look if you were to frame up a shot like this?
If something has a look or a feel or a sound, it should always have that even in a more controlled environment.
It depends what you mean by 'a look'. If you make all the images look identical, then no it doesn't have a look. However, were you to repeat the test using each camera/lens combo to its strengths then yes you would see a big difference. Isn't that the point?
No, I don’t think it really matters which rig captured this portrait! I had no clue, and it does not matter to me, since the output is good. Just sayin’
WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS. Sorry, I don't know what else to say. Yes, when you shoot "scientifically" like this, trying to make the shooting conditions for each camera as similar as possible, finding the differences is going to be hard. This is not why you buy a camera with a bigger sensor, you buy a camera with a bigger sensor because you can do things with that camera that is hard or impossible to do with smaller sensor cameras.
You don't shoot portraits with a MF camera at F/8, you shoot at a larger aperture. When allowing this, the camera with the bigger sensor can do things that cameras with the smaller sensor simply can't do since getting glass of appropriate quality to match is difficult or even impossible.
That someone at Fstoppers still don't understand that you don't buy more expensive cameras to shoot under the same conditions as you can with the cheaper ones, you buy more expensive cameras because they can do what the cheaper ones simply can't.
This "test" is silly.
And where is your proof? What you are saying is the theory.
Where is my proof of what? That you can't get an M4/3 lens with the equivalent of a Medium Format 110mm F/2 lens? Well, for one, you can't prove a negative, but try B&H or similar.
You are arguing that Medium format has its look and yet you have no proofs.
"You don't shoot portraits with a MF camera at F/8, you shoot at a larger aperture. When allowing this, the camera with the bigger sensor can do things that cameras with the smaller sensor simply can't do since getting glass of appropriate quality to match is difficult or even impossible."
Medium format is just a bigger camera with a bigger sensor. The quality can be different but the look can not be special. What makes you think that Medium format camera produces its aesthetic? Do you even have test images with both 35mm and MF?
I´m looking forward to seeing the results.
I think it would be more interesting if we viewed the photos after they had been edited to their potential. Frankly, some of the advantages the MF and FF have over the crop sensor cameras comes in the ability to edit and the greater information contained in the file.
That you can get similar results from 4 very size camera sensors, using lenses of different focal lengths and apertures is... hardly a discovery, Lee.
You may as well have blindfolded and put ear muffs on a person, drove them from 0-60 mph in exactly 10 seconds in a Volkswagen Beetle, a Honda Accord, a Porsche, and a Mclaren F1 and then asked them which car they were riding in each time.
This... really doesn't make any sense. Of course you're not going to get a 'full frame' or 'medium format' look when you're doing EVERYTHING TO MITIGATE THE DIFFERENCES FROM THE BEGINNING.
You need to stop copy and pasting comments, we don’t need to read the same thing 5 times in one article.
MF look never exist. It just a dream. I used a digital MF more than 5 years including the newest Hasselblad X1Dii with 80mm F1.9 and I never found its look. Also, for those of you believe that MF look exist never ever have proves and scientific testing to show.
Maybe I'm crazy but I expected to see a number of different shots and compositions, not just one.
Totally irrelevant comparison. You don't buy a high end camera and lens and define it's quality by shooting with closed aperture at daylight. Unless you have very serious GAS, you get the gear to do things you can't do without it..
I'b put an older canon TI with the kit lens to the same test, and get similar results.
Ok, I'll give it a try!
1. FujiFilm XT-3/ 23.6mm x 15.6mm sensor/ 35mm f4
2. FujiFilm GFX 50R/ 43.mm x 32.9mm sensor/ 64mm lens f/8
3. Canon 6D/ 35mm ff sensor/ 50mm f5.6
4. Panasonic GH5/ Micro 4/3 sensor/ 25mm f2.8
For this shooting (and display) scenario, there are no meaningful photographic differences.