Hey! After doing a bit more research after this video i think you’re a little more on the nose. The distance between camera and subject is the reason for the “compression” and the angle of view crops in on the image making it appear as if everything in the background got larger playing into that “compression”
This is misleading information! Perspective compression has nothing to do with angle of view... A 40mm on Full Frame has the same compression of a 40mm on Medium Format! What will change is the viewing angle (in this example medium format will have a wider viewing angle). As far as Depth of Field goes... there are many factors. Entrance Pupile = Focal length / Aperture, Camera Distance to Subject, Sensor Size (f/4 on micro four thirds is equal to f/8 on a Full frame in terms of DoF. Keep in mind that f/4 is gathering more light than f/8). There would be more to say
I am an Pentax 6x7 owner and have been triggered t(due to youtube suggestions, of course) into some GAS regarding large format, but not yet to the point of making the move, so far I keep watching good videos such as this one. The images I get, and I'm still learning how to improve it, on the 6x7 are making me happy enough for now. Who knows for next year?
A good comparison .Both these formats have their merits. For me it depends what I am taking .I find that a planned shot for LF is almost a must, as carrying all the kit can be a pain if there is no previsualized image.
I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10. I love them both, especially 8x10 for things like contact printing (super sharp!) or alternative processes like Polaroid 8x10. I also have a Graflex 4x5 SLR, which, while still cumbersome, lets you get some sort of run-and-gun with 4x5 (yes, it's a true "hand-held" SLR!) I really recommend looking into the 4x5 SLRs if you are interested in that sort of shooting. It's amazing for outdoor portraits.
Great to see you making videos again! I would disagree with most people's idea of chosing and comparing cameras. To me it's always been all about the lenses! I find a lens that I like, I check what mount it was on, I try to find information if the lens covers a bigger image circle than the "native" mount, then see the limitations, then check how to re-mount the lens to a system that will utilize the maximum potential of a specific look that I liked. For most of my portrait photography needs and dreams, the Pentax 67 platform is the best there ever was. And I don't treat it as a "camera". It's a "platform". Because it has an in body shutter, you can modify a ton of interesting funky lenses to use with it. 4x5" sheet film cameras have one absolutely lethal flaw - most of them have a leaf shutter in the lens. So modifying interesting lenses to use with 4x5" cameras is much more tricky. You need to look for a Graflex or something similar that had a focal plane shutter. That's me, a portrait photographer speaking. For landscapes, gas stations, old cars, classic Americana - the choice is actually much more nuanced and complicated :D
I’ve been carrying around my Pentax 67 for a couple of years now and found the comparison at the end of the day vs LF is weight. Pentax is awkwardly heavy it’s massive but setup time is fast. The intrepid on the other hand is amazingly light but setup time arduous. I’ve finally decided to sell my 67 and dive into the LF for the setup experience. Great Vid you brought up some great points in never considered
This was so insightful, thanks! I'm only doing digital but really interested in film, and something (everything) about large format really fascinates me
Resolution isn't the only reason I shoot 4x5. My RB67 along with topaz gigapixel ai lets me print to the max size on my 24" printer. With my RB for 10 years, I learned the discipline to carefully prepare for the shot and take fewer shots. On a 4x5 with front standard rise/fall, L/R swing, forward/backward tilt combined with rear standard L/R swing, front back tilt there are a huge number of permutations and combinations in the photographers tool box that don't exist in other formats or if a "tilt/shift" lens is used, it is minimal. With my lights, I can craft the lighting in my image and 4x5 gives me the ability to further craft the capture. And yes, it is a slow, complex process. But all together, it is something this especially important for amateurs... IT'S FUN. The first time you look at the ground glass with a loupe at the incredible image, it even exceeds the joy of focusing an RB with it's huge view finder. The challenge of the process is fun and the images, well, spectacular.
Thanks a lot! I think large and medium should not be compared. The size, costs, set-up, loading, fine adjusting, time, etc are very different. I never tried myself, but I can imagine that some people love the process of large format.
I think you did a good explanation of large format depth. To get the same field of view on full frame you use a wider lens and get less compression. To get the same compression on full frame you can compensate for the smaller sensor by stitching together X (i.e. 9 or 16) pictures taken with the longer focal length. Disregarding the added detail, the stitched image will not look the same as the image shot with the wider lens.
You are partially right when it’s comes to the comprehension but a 150mm lens is similar to the 50mm 35mm full frame , in order to get the depth of field similar to the medium format you need an f stop of f16, f32, to f64. The f32 would give you about the same depth of view and in focus areas as what your 6x7 format image showed.
Not many people do portraits with these cameras, everyone is focused on landscape. It would be great to have some tutorials on that subject...THE PORTRAIT.
"Not many people do portraits with these cameras" .. according to who? I bought my 4x5 then 5x7 especially for portrait. But I guess I live in a bigger world with a broader frame of reference.
I shoot small format images on 35mm roll film with 14mm to 1000mm focal length prime lenses. I use small format when I need speed and versatility more than high image quality. I shoot large format images on 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch sheet film with normal and wide-angle prime lenses. I shoot large format when I need maximum image quality and swing/tilt front/rear movements. I shoot 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12cm images on 120 and 220 medium format roll film with normal, wide-angle, and telephoto prime lenses. I use medium format when I need a compromise between large and small formats.
With ALL aspects beings equal, normal lenses equaling diagonal distance of film, same focus distance, and same working aperture, the larger format will always have less depth of field. With large format, one can make up for less DoF by exercising the Scheimpflug principle along with other standard movements.
This is the comparison I'm looking for. The cost is actually now comparable, say between a chamonix 45 full set-up and a hsselblad 503. I have been very interested to see if the extra resolution and the large format look can justify the extra hassle of carrying and setting up a large format rig.
Having shot more large format film than probably 99% of the planet, I would say hell ya -the difference is huge - Even more so if you tilt the front lense element to give you maximum sharpness zone - I used 6x7 when I did fashion as 35mm is ridiculous re quality in a bad way. shooting 8X10 Ektachrome is mind blowing in depth and detail especially when synced with a schneider or rodenstock. The big advantage of large format is you control perspective with the rear standard and the focal plane with the front standard. With a field camera the movements are restricted pending the camera - Deardorf's are so hard to find these days - Keep shooting 4X5 love the process - there is so much that you can do when the subject is stationary that the other cameras just can't -
LOVE the colors in your shots! Looks like a pretty incredible trip. As somebody who still occasionally shoots FP-100C, I guess I look at $7 a shot and think, “huh, so about normal priced.” I guess I’ve got peel-apart pack film Stockholm syndrome, although I remember when it was $7 for a pack of ten… but on a more serious note, have you tried out Instax with a Lomo Graflok back? It seems like it can give you the best results Instax Wide is capable of when you shoot it in a view camera. Which-technically, is probably worse than the quality of 6x7 (although the image area is roughly the same) but with all the extra challenges of shooting 4x5. It’d end up at 90¢ a shot, though, and no development costs!
should have made 16x20 prints and looked at them side by side. I think when you get above a 16x20 print the 4x5 negative will show its true colors and leave the 6x7 negative behind. Print wise the 4x5 will win for detail, and tone there is just so much more size and detail. The only advantage is the 6x7 is light and much easier to carry around and use. Depends on what you like to photograph, for portraits the 6x7 is great and 4x5 is better suited for landscape, although some do take portraits with 4x5. Cost wise 4x5 is much higher priced per sheet and to develop, 6x7 film cost less to shoot and to develop and there is more 6x7 film choices than 4x5.
Not to be rude but when you're "explaining" large format depth you actually confusing the term "compression" with depth of field. Compression is a term used to describe how the distance between distant objects and near objects becomes more flat and less noticeable. What's happening with what your noticing is large format cameras have increasingly more shallow depth of field so the area of acceptable focus is thinner. that more rapid gradient between the out of focus foreground and the in focus subject is due to depth of field, not compression
I like what you’ve trying to do but you are comparing two very different cameras and optics. The different in sharpness is due a lot to the pentax lens. Instead use a 4x5 with sheet film and then the same lens with roll 120 film. Otherwise you have to select a perfectly equivalent lens.
I shoot 8x10. I have a loaded f.64 backpack 🎒 just for my 8x10. Hurts just thinking about it. Funny part is I keep looking at 11x14 and 14x17 cameras. I keep telling myself I have the room. This lens and this lens will cover it. It’s not that expensive 😂😂
if you're referring to using swing and tilt I decided to leave that out of the video because I felt like it didn't fit in the video. I was trying to compare the things you can get with both formats (compression & resolution). Since swing and tilt are things exclusive to 4x5 I didn't think it was beneficial to add. Maybe that was the wrong decision idk
Any large format shooters here?
sorry just your lowly 35mm filmer here :D
I have joined the dark slide in 4x5.
35mm still rocks! What ya shooting on?
Bahahahahahaha
@@Braxtonwallis hehe 👍👍
Nikon F100 , Ultramax400 or Ektar depending 😁
Hey! Perspective compression is the result of your angle of view, not your focal length. However, longer focal lengths have a shallower depth of field
Hey! After doing a bit more research after this video i think you’re a little more on the nose. The distance between camera and subject is the reason for the “compression” and the angle of view crops in on the image making it appear as if everything in the background got larger playing into that “compression”
@@Braxtonwallis it’s the unfolding of the DoF that is different. And that is basically what you are talking about in the video.
This is misleading information! Perspective compression has nothing to do with angle of view... A 40mm on Full Frame has the same compression of a 40mm on Medium Format! What will change is the viewing angle (in this example medium format will have a wider viewing angle).
As far as Depth of Field goes... there are many factors. Entrance Pupile = Focal length / Aperture, Camera Distance to Subject, Sensor Size (f/4 on micro four thirds is equal to f/8 on a Full frame in terms of DoF. Keep in mind that f/4 is gathering more light than f/8).
There would be more to say
I am an Pentax 6x7 owner and have been triggered t(due to youtube suggestions, of course) into some GAS regarding large format, but not yet to the point of making the move, so far I keep watching good videos such as this one.
The images I get, and I'm still learning how to improve it, on the 6x7 are making me happy enough for now. Who knows for next year?
totally! Pentax 67 is totally more then enough especially on that 105 2.4 !!!!
Woah! Under 1,000 subs? Good quality videos. Lots of potential!
Thank you so much!!! Much more to come!
I have a Pentax 67 ii but I am afraid to try anything bigger !! Very, very nice presentation. Thank you. RS. Canada
You can do it! thank you for watching!
A good comparison .Both these formats have their merits. For me it depends what I am taking .I find that a planned shot for LF is almost a must, as carrying all the kit can be a pain if there is no previsualized image.
oh for sure! Such a fun process!
Nice production values here. Got those two cameras you have there, agree with view of their merits.
Thank you!!!! ❤️
I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10. I love them both, especially 8x10 for things like contact printing (super sharp!) or alternative processes like Polaroid 8x10.
I also have a Graflex 4x5 SLR, which, while still cumbersome, lets you get some sort of run-and-gun with 4x5 (yes, it's a true "hand-held" SLR!) I really recommend looking into the 4x5 SLRs if you are interested in that sort of shooting. It's amazing for outdoor portraits.
nice!! Ive looked into them but theyre so absolutely massive hahaha maybe one day though!
Great to see you making videos again! I would disagree with most people's idea of chosing and comparing cameras. To me it's always been all about the lenses! I find a lens that I like, I check what mount it was on, I try to find information if the lens covers a bigger image circle than the "native" mount, then see the limitations, then check how to re-mount the lens to a system that will utilize the maximum potential of a specific look that I liked.
For most of my portrait photography needs and dreams, the Pentax 67 platform is the best there ever was. And I don't treat it as a "camera". It's a "platform". Because it has an in body shutter, you can modify a ton of interesting funky lenses to use with it. 4x5" sheet film cameras have one absolutely lethal flaw - most of them have a leaf shutter in the lens. So modifying interesting lenses to use with 4x5" cameras is much more tricky. You need to look for a Graflex or something similar that had a focal plane shutter.
That's me, a portrait photographer speaking. For landscapes, gas stations, old cars, classic Americana - the choice is actually much more nuanced and complicated :D
wow i never really thought about it like that. so interesting! appreciate the support as always!!!
I’ve been carrying around my Pentax 67 for a couple of years now and found the comparison at the end of the day vs LF is weight. Pentax is awkwardly heavy it’s massive but setup time is fast. The intrepid on the other hand is amazingly light but setup time arduous. I’ve finally decided to sell my 67 and dive into the LF for the setup experience. Great Vid you brought up some great points in never considered
Oh yea for sure!! I still love my Pentax tho. Thank you for watching!!!
To Christopher Garcia : Your comment is interesting and very relevant. RS Canada
This was so insightful, thanks! I'm only doing digital but really interested in film, and something (everything) about large format really fascinates me
Resolution isn't the only reason I shoot 4x5. My RB67 along with topaz gigapixel ai lets me print to the max size on my 24" printer. With my RB for 10 years, I learned the discipline to carefully prepare for the shot and take fewer shots. On a 4x5 with front standard rise/fall, L/R swing, forward/backward tilt combined with rear standard L/R swing, front back tilt there are a huge number of permutations and combinations in the photographers tool box that don't exist in other formats or if a "tilt/shift" lens is used, it is minimal. With my lights, I can craft the lighting in my image and 4x5 gives me the ability to further craft the capture. And yes, it is a slow, complex process. But all together, it is something this especially important for amateurs... IT'S FUN. The first time you look at the ground glass with a loupe at the incredible image, it even exceeds the joy of focusing an RB with it's huge view finder. The challenge of the process is fun and the images, well, spectacular.
Thanks a lot! I think large and medium should not be compared. The size, costs, set-up, loading, fine adjusting, time, etc are very different. I never tried myself, but I can imagine that some people love the process of large format.
I can definitely understand that. Thanks for watching!
I think you did a good explanation of large format depth. To get the same field of view on full frame you use a wider lens and get less compression. To get the same compression on full frame you can compensate for the smaller sensor by stitching together X (i.e. 9 or 16) pictures taken with the longer focal length. Disregarding the added detail, the stitched image will not look the same as the image shot with the wider lens.
Thank you!!!
You are partially right when it’s comes to the comprehension but a 150mm lens is similar to the 50mm 35mm full frame , in order to get the depth of field similar to the medium format you need an f stop of f16, f32, to f64. The f32 would give you about the same depth of view and in focus areas as what your 6x7 format image showed.
Nice video...well executed!
thank you❤
LF movements make things very interesting.
that they do
Also we need to print that last image for the studio 👀
say lesssss
In my use, I dont use much 4x5. My opinion better get a 6x7 and 5x7 LF. 5x7 is a very awesome format.
5x7 is super sick but also super expensive lolll maybe one day!
The swings and tilts on the 4x5 provide control over the focal plane.
His much image quality difference might be caused by the different lenses?
Not many people do portraits with these cameras, everyone is focused on landscape. It would be great to have some tutorials on that subject...THE PORTRAIT.
thats coming soon 👀
"Not many people do portraits with these cameras" .. according to who? I bought my 4x5 then 5x7 especially for portrait. But I guess I live in a bigger world with a broader frame of reference.
MANY photographers use large format exclusively for portraits!
I shoot small format images on 35mm roll film with 14mm to 1000mm focal length prime lenses. I use small format when I need speed and versatility more than high image quality.
I shoot large format images on 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch sheet film with normal and wide-angle prime lenses. I shoot large format when I need maximum image quality and swing/tilt front/rear movements.
I shoot 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12cm images on 120 and 220 medium format roll film with normal, wide-angle, and telephoto prime lenses. I use medium format when I need a compromise between large and small formats.
With ALL aspects beings equal, normal lenses equaling diagonal distance of film, same focus distance, and same working aperture, the larger format will always have less depth of field.
With large format, one can make up for less DoF by exercising the Scheimpflug principle along with other standard movements.
super well made UA-cam Content
thank you!!!
This is the comparison I'm looking for. The cost is actually now comparable, say between a chamonix 45 full set-up and a hsselblad 503. I have been very interested to see if the extra resolution and the large format look can justify the extra hassle of carrying and setting up a large format rig.
actually, a comparison between Mamiya 7 and chamonix would be preferable haha
Having shot more large format film than probably 99% of the planet, I would say hell ya -the difference is huge - Even more so if you tilt the front lense element to give you maximum sharpness zone - I used 6x7 when I did fashion as 35mm is ridiculous re quality in a bad way. shooting 8X10 Ektachrome is mind blowing in depth and detail especially when synced with a schneider or rodenstock. The big advantage of large format is you control perspective with the rear standard and the focal plane with the front standard. With a field camera the movements are restricted pending the camera - Deardorf's are so hard to find these days - Keep shooting 4X5 love the process - there is so much that you can do when the subject is stationary that the other cameras just can't -
AND HES BACK
good to be back 😎
LOVE the colors in your shots! Looks like a pretty incredible trip.
As somebody who still occasionally shoots FP-100C, I guess I look at $7 a shot and think, “huh, so about normal priced.” I guess I’ve got peel-apart pack film Stockholm syndrome, although I remember when it was $7 for a pack of ten… but on a more serious note, have you tried out Instax with a Lomo Graflok back? It seems like it can give you the best results Instax Wide is capable of when you shoot it in a view camera. Which-technically, is probably worse than the quality of 6x7 (although the image area is roughly the same) but with all the extra challenges of shooting 4x5. It’d end up at 90¢ a shot, though, and no development costs!
its on my list of things to try out soon hahahah!!! Looks like super fun!
should have made 16x20 prints and looked at them side by side. I think when you get above a 16x20 print the 4x5 negative will show its true colors and leave the 6x7 negative behind. Print wise the 4x5 will win for detail, and tone there is just so much more size and detail. The only advantage is the 6x7 is light and much easier to carry around and use. Depends on what you like to photograph, for portraits the 6x7 is great and 4x5 is better suited for landscape, although some do take portraits with 4x5. Cost wise 4x5 is much higher priced per sheet and to develop, 6x7 film cost less to shoot and to develop and there is more 6x7 film choices than 4x5.
Here's to hoping for a longer video from Yosemite🤞
I definitely can make that happen :)
And how do you only have 700 subscribers ?!
Hahaha I appreciate! Still really new to this but enjoying it so so much!!! Thank you for the support ❤️
UA-cam compression notwithstanding, without knowing your scanning methodology, very little conclusion can be drawn here.
I missed you too
Missed u dad
Definitely
Not to be rude but when you're "explaining" large format depth you actually confusing the term "compression" with depth of field. Compression is a term used to describe how the distance between distant objects and near objects becomes more flat and less noticeable. What's happening with what your noticing is large format cameras have increasingly more shallow depth of field so the area of acceptable focus is thinner. that more rapid gradient between the out of focus foreground and the in focus subject is due to depth of field, not compression
OMG I MISSED YOU SO MUCH ❤️
misssed youuuuuu
I like what you’ve trying to do but you are comparing two very different cameras and optics. The different in sharpness is due a lot to the pentax lens. Instead use a 4x5 with sheet film and then the same lens with roll 120 film. Otherwise you have to select a perfectly equivalent lens.
I shoot 8x10. I have a loaded f.64 backpack 🎒 just for my 8x10. Hurts just thinking about it. Funny part is I keep looking at 11x14 and 14x17 cameras. I keep telling myself I have the room. This lens and this lens will cover it. It’s not that expensive 😂😂
You have not even mentioned any of the most important reasons for using large format cameras. What??
😳
if you're referring to using swing and tilt I decided to leave that out of the video because I felt like it didn't fit in the video. I was trying to compare the things you can get with both formats (compression & resolution). Since swing and tilt are things exclusive to 4x5 I didn't think it was beneficial to add. Maybe that was the wrong decision idk
💯
I close the video as soon as he says 7$ per image
3:10 🤤🤤🤤
😮💨😮💨❤️❤️