Before You Buy a "BIG SENSOR" Camera WATCH THIS! (Landscape Photography)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- 🔘Use this link to get $25 off your PPA membership today:
www.ppa.com/jo...
🌟Download My FREE Photography Guides
markdenneyphot...
In this week’s episode, we discuss buying a big sensor camera and why you should watch this video before you buy one for landscape photography. Over the course of the last 8 months since my switch to the Medium Format Fuji GFX100s, I've been answering a colossal amount of questions regarding switching from a full frame or crop sensor camera to a larger medium format sensor. And in this video, I answer the most common questions I've received, but most importantly discuss the biggest problem I've encountered with using such a large sensor for landscape photography. This is an issue I never quite expected, but probably should have been aware of prior to making my purchase. I hope you enjoy this week's episode and as always, thanks so much for watching! - Mark D.
RECOMMENDED GEAR PAGE
🔘geni.us/myfavo...
PHOTO GEAR I USE
🔘FujiFilm GFX100s: geni.us/B0sKNO
🔘Video Camera: geni.us/x-t4
🔘Action Cam: geni.us/oRhupMT
🔘Fujifilm 23mm: geni.us/23mmprime
🔘Fujifilm 100-200mm: geni.us/longis...
🔘Wide Lens: geni.us/fuji10-24
🔘Super Wide Lens: geni.us/superwide
🔘Long Lens: geni.us/longlens
🔘Super Long Lens: geni.us/longte...
🔘Favorite Tripod: geni.us/rrstripod
🔘2nd Tripod: geni.us/fotopro
🔘Favorite Backpack: geni.us/Explorev2
🔘2nd Backpack: geni.us/actionx
🔘Top Ballhead: geni.us/aspenb...
🔘Ballhead: geni.us/rrsbh40
🔘Full Photo Kit: geni.us/photokit
🔘Full Video Kit: geni.us/fullvi...
🔘Shimoda Camera Backpacks
Use Code DENNEY10 for 10% Off
shimodadesigns...
WATCH THESE PLAYLISTS NEXT
🔘Composition Tips: geni.us/compos...
🔘Beginners Guide: geni.us/Beginn...
🔘Editing Tutorials: geni.us/Editing
🔘Tips & Tricks: geni.us/Tipsan...
FAVORITE TOOLS & SERVICES I USE
🔘TubeBuddy: www.tubebuddy....
🔘Music & Sound Effects I Use: goo.gl/Qh9scf
As an affiliate marketer & Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I earn a small commission on the above links if you decide to purchase the item at no additional charge to you.
#landscapephotography #cameras
*LETS CONNECT*
Newsletter: markdenneyphot...
Instagram: / markdenneyphoto
Facebook: / markdenneyphoto
Twitter: / markdenneyphoto
TikTok: / markdenneyphoto
QUICK QUESTION: Which camera are you using now?
I have a Sony Alpha a6600
Fujifilm xt2
Sony A7 ii
I have a 6600, an A7III and an A7RIII... definitely use the 6600 the most for my own personal use.
Olympus EM5MARK3.
I started my commercial photography career decades ago with film cameras.
The difference in depth of field between formats was a well known phenomenon.
That's one reason there are tilt and shift movements on view cameras.
That's also why most early landscape photographers used sheet film field cameras with tilt and shift capabilities.
Tilting the lens board alters the plane of focus to achieve the extended depth of field needs with larger format media.
One solution for the GFX series is to use the Canon TSE lenses with an adapter that passes through the aperture setting information.
That provides the tilt to help with depth of field. Also provides shift capabilities to help with composition.
Rogeti makes frames to hold the 17mm, 24mm and 50mm TSE lenses. The frames turn the movements into lens board movements rather than film plan movements which is a benefit with landscape photography.
When I read the title of this video, I was confident you were going to talk about depth of field related to focal length, aperture and media size. In the film days that often dictated which camera system I took to a job.
Your experience is exaggerated by moving from APS-C to large sensor Fuji. If you had spend some time doing landscape photography with full frame digital you would have already experienced the phenomenon to a lesser extent.
You make nice images. Thanks for providing this UA-cam resource.
Very good comment David! I’m glad you made mention of the use of tilt/ shift lenses, and the old large format field cameras of Yesteryear. Mostly, the mention of ‘depth of field,’ and how it relates to a particular scene.
I hear so many people get this confused with the actual plane of focus, including the maker of this video! I hear time and again the “foreground was in focus, but the background was not,” etc. There is only one true point/plane of focus in any photograph, as I’m sure you know. I think Mark meant to imply the difference in the depth of field and depth of focus. @12:40 with the leaves is a great example.
Wherever the camera focused on, that would have been in focus. At such short distance from the subject, and the close proximity of the foliage to one another, Depth of field will be extremely narrow. But I digress
Thanks for the comment and your sharing of your Knowledge, which I’m sure surpasses mine. Stay safe and Healthy! Best
Solid information, thanks a lot.
Something that I really appreciate about shooting medium format film is that old manual focus lenses have depth of field scales on the lens. This makes it a lot easier to get everything in focus in a single shot. Plus, if something is soft, it's less noticeable than digital due to the inherent softness of film.
I agree, very helpful. My rz67 has it on the side and it can come in clutch.
Some of my older canon cameras had a button on the front that you could push to have the aperture close for a real DOF PREVIEW. In ancient times we learned about hyperfocal point
One thing I learned after acquiring my Leica M10 is that depth of field on high-resolution sensors is shallower than depth of field on film. The DoF scales don't work the same way. I'm learning to gauge the actual DoF (I only have one lens, a 1979-manufactured Leitz Canada 50mm f2 Summicron-M). I've never forgotten hyperfocal distance. Live View is available in a pinch.
Great video! The solution is to just shoot at a narrower aperture. On medium format diffraction really isn’t much of a problem. Ansel Adam’s shot many things at f64 on his large format camera.
Anselm Adams did not shoot medium format.
@@peterebel7899 Correct my bad, of course he used his large format camera. My point was to emphasize that as ones sensor size/film is larger the narrower the aperture can be before diffraction
Yes, he did. In addition to his large format rigs, he used a Hasselblad 500 with 50, 80, 150 and 250mm lenses.
@@weselsmith Sure, I got your point. But the wider the format is the narrower the depth of field enforces those high f-stops.
So, this supreme IQ comes with the price of long exposure times.
At first I was surprised by your finding, but I shouldn't have been. Tony Northrup demonstrated years ago that depth of field for a given F-stop varies from sensor to sensor based on their relative crop factor. The smaller the sensor, the more depth of field.
For example, F/13 on a FF sensor will give the same DOF as F/8 on a crop sensor with a 1.5x crop factor (open 1.5 stops). The relative crop factor is of the GFX 100S is about 0.79 to a FF. So, if for example you got acceptable front-to-back sharpness on your X-T4 at F/8, you would need F/13 on a FF and maybe F/19 or F/22 on the GFX for similar results. The seascape that you would have gotten in one shot at F/16 on a FF, you'd need F/22 or a half-stop up from that on the GFX. My math isn't exact, but you get the idea. Of course, stopping down that much brings diffraction into play. Pick your poison.
Love the video and discussions that followed. I for one have not given up on MFT systems even though I shoot with FF sensors at this time. My printing experts dearly want me to graduate to the Fuji system you are using for my Landscape images and hence, this video highly pertinent. Equally important is the discussion that followed. As for me I plan to not give up any of the systems, but use each wisely. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.
You just saved me a bunch of money.....Appreciate your honesty
I ran into this problem too when I started shooting with my gfx50r. That's why medium format lenses stop all the way down to F/32.
Beyond f/10 the diffraction becomes very noticeable
Interesting, Mark. I didn’t realise just how shallow the DOF was with medium format. Thanks for sharing. 👍🇦🇺🦘
Glad to do it Peter!
It makes sense though: at the other end of the scale, tiny-sensor cameras struggle to give a shallow DOF. I hadn't given that aspect of medium format sensors too much thought till now.
@@metalmick99 Indeed. It’s logical, I guess.
@@peterfritzphoto A few days ago, DPReview TV did a nice little clip on medium format DOF vs other formats. I found it quite illuminating: ua-cam.com/video/zmlmhrXVfeU/v-deo.html
@@metalmick99 Thanks, Michael. 👍
Ansel Adams was a fan of F/64 on large format cameras to give depth of field in landscape images. Once you go large, you have to go large (numerically), on that f stop.
Absolutely love my 50sii. I routinely use my Nikon 45mm pc-e. Works great and fully cover sensor
So close to buying this system and depth of fired was one of my big hang ups I was struggling with. That and what the future of photography will look like…such a big investment
Love this vid... thanks. A couple of points to be made about the GFX 100S after using it for about three months. My Nikon D850 body weighs 100 grams more than the 100S. I had to shoot primes with my Nikon to get the picture quality that I kinda demand. Fuji GF lenses are just do a better job because of PHYSICS. Lens engineers just don't have to bend light as much and therefore better quality images take less work to engineer. I went from a 25 pound pack to 15 pounds. I can now shoot zooms and still get the quality images that I really need for my work. I have the GF 30mm prime, GF 45-100mm, and the GF 100-200mm.
DOF? I can stop down a couple of stops more than my D850. I find the pixel peeking stupendous and Photopills is my friend to be sure. Typical shot is one for the bottom of the frame then the old 1/3 up from that usually takes care of it. For landscapes this camera is a dream camera.
My friend has the Fuji GFX50S II, and I asked him about depth of field. He says it's shallow, but not as bad as his film medium format cameras.
In many ways apsc is best for certain genres which is why I have the Sony a7R5 (it's two formats in one). For most photography I use full frame, but I also shoot in apsc crop mode. I have the Sony 10-20mm f4 apsc lens for landscape to maximize depth of field.
Apsc is great for landscape, long telephoto, and macro. Full frame and medium format are great for portraits, flowers..
I had and still have the same issue jumping from APS-C to full frame. I am now trying to embrace the thinner dof to make my subjects stand out more.
I know this is a bit late to reply but you can use hyper focal method, The manual focusing menu has it setup as blue indicator showing the depth if field on your focus point.
And on a completely unrelated note... I love the fact that you have a GameBoy sitting right there at your elbow. I still have a lot of my cartridges but the batteries exploded while my GB was in storage and I'm really missing it right now. 😄
Reminds me of a photographer on here whom I follow. He shoots Fuji ACSP. A full frame shooter said to him- "I can get more background blur with the same amount of light coming into the camera." (Same F-stop) He kind of turned it around and replied- "Well guess what, I can get more DOF with the same amount of light coming into the camera."
I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I have the OM-1, having been using M43 for some years now. It's quite a bit different from what most people tend to use, with many detractors. Yet in daily use I find few drawbacks. It works for me, which is what matters most. As you mentioned in another video, you switched to Fuji because it's different, and something most photographers aren't using. Yes, it has a fanbase, but compared to Sony or Canon, it's not very widely used. The same can be said for Olympus, now OM System. It's even more niche, I suppose. Yet I'm liking it so far. With a year and some months of ownership, it's become rather comfortable for me to use. I get the photos I want to, or at least I usually do. I'll keep working at it. That's the best thing any of us can do, endeavor to learn to use what we have. Camera gear is secondary to skill and experience. Learn your stuff. That's what counts. I didn't get this for some years, always thinking gear made the difference. It helps, but no matter what you own, it comes down to you to get the photos. You are the biggest variable. At least we know photographers matter. We are the life of the art.
I like these deep dive into the fundamentals videos. I think the best way to really understand depth of field is to understand the circle of confusion concept and to study the equation for a circle of confusion to see what is proportional and inverse.
I'm taking advantage of the current rebates, my GFX 50S II arrives today. :D 27 years of telling myself I don't *need* it, lol. Sent the new X-H2 back, and I'm going GFX!
Depth of field is determined by the physical size of the lens aperture, irrespective of the size of the sensor. What many people miss, however, is that the f-number of a given aperture is determined by the sensor size. To take an extreme example Ansel Adams founded the f/64 club - named after the f number you might need to get the whole of a scene in focus on a large format film camera. The same aperture might be f/16 on a medium format camera, f/11 on a full frame camera, f/8 on an aps-c camera and f/5.6 on a MFT camera.
I'm in the process of buying a Fuji GFX100S, not to replace, but to compliment my existing Z7. I miss shooting 4x5.
Why in a landscape image everything from fore- to background has to be in focus, has to be sharp? Very often I find that when the background ist blurred a little bit the image becomes more three-dimensional, it looks more natural, fore-, middle- and background are better separated from each other.
If you want everything sharp: Take a Micro Four Thirds camera ...
Have a look at the work of Mark Littlejohn, you may like it.
The DOF issue is amplified by the high resolution (you can zoom in further) and the 4:3 ratio of the GFX versus 3:2 of full frame and APS-C when shot horizontally. With a horizontal shot, the 4:3 ratio adds a considerable amount of image area to the foreground, which means you have a much longer distance that you're trying to cover by stopping down. I find images that are uniformly sharp from foreground to infinity to be flat and less interesting when compared to landscapes with varying levels of sharpness. It's the less in focus areas that give an image depth, not the uniformity of focus. And that style of shooting - foreground interest/object with leading lines to the background/infinity - I find it be be a bit exhausted. Have we not seen enough wide angle "landscape calendar" images? I would join with some of the other commenters here in saying that medium format is well suited to finding new and creative ways of composing for landscape - for example, using normal-to-telephoto focal lengths to frame up an image that is entirely at infinity focus and requires a single shot.
James, very insightful and I fully agree. I'm a little bit tired of the "close foreground to infinity" portrait style landscape shots. Seems every landscape photographer is using this same old trope so often that their shots seem boring after a while.
This is why large format cameras have tilt, shift and swing lens movements, which solve your problem with better control over the plane of sharp focus. It’s just the laws of optics being rigorously enforced.
Rent a Schneider-Kreuznach tilt/shift lens with an adapter to your system. In your coastline example, a small angle of downward tilt would fix it. Then the planes of the focus for the distant object, the near object, the lens focal plane and the sensor plane all converge to a single point somewhere fairly deep below your feet and the whole image is sharp.
Lens movements are a massive help to landscape photography to correct converging verticals, helps composition and improve perspective in mountainous country, it’s not just for architectural photographers.
Well for me personally I think having everything tack sharp is way over rated unless you are pixel peeping. I used to shoot 4x5 sheet film. Talk about not having much depth of field lol. Granted you could tilt to help out. You could grab a cambo actus system for tilting and swinging to help with depth. I have one and it’s soooo much fun. But at the end of the day I personally never thought of having an image completely sharp from front to back was a big deal
The area of focus for normal vision is much narrower than close focus to infinity focus in a landscape image. Humans usually focus on one or the other at a time but rarely both simultaneously and with perfect vision; at least for me.
I used to shoot 4x5 as well and always used all the tilt controls. More than capturing depth of field, my eyes are limiting my ability to check focus. Live View can be dark in the sunlight. Contact lenses dont have bifocals. Glasses are a pain with the viewfinder. Sunglasses can delay your ability to adjust to light. Its amazing anything I shoot is tack sharp! lol
Painters for centuries have put extra detail on their subjects while blurring foreground and background elements in an effort to guide the viewer's eye to the focal point. It mimics the way human vision works, and effectively provides an illusion of distance to the scene. This works when the painter, and also the photographer, have clearly defined the subject early in the composition process. All situations differ, of course, but focus stacking very frequently may be an indication of being stuck on a particular m.o.
Very informative. You are right, this is not the type of details we tend to research on when buying a new camera system. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for checking out the video!
Hi Mark, Nice informative video. But before you brought up the depth of field issue with using a medium format camera, I all ready new what you were going to say. I've been using medium film cameras for years. That is what I like, the shallow depth of field. I feel like your eye will go to the sharpest part of the image. I think a lot of landscape photographers are so caught up in having everything in focus, front to back. I have a 4/3 camera and that is what i dislike about it. The depth of field is to big. That being said, you might try stopping down the lens a little more than you're use to. You might have to go to F16, F22 or more if the lens permits.
Apsc has affordable F0.95 lenses:
50mm
35mm
Brightsun, 7Artisans,Ttartisans, Laowa
I love my Olympus M4/3........its so exciting to use ...smallest sensor yet to A3 size really detailed...and I can take 3 Pro lens in a small rucksack anywhere..
Makes one kind of wonder about those old school film, landscape photographers, back in the day shooting large format film. Seems those guys shot at f/32 and f/64. Of course, diffraction will kick in. Good video you have made. I also remember someone saying "Everything in photography is a trade off." Wise words indeed.
40 years ago the general advice was making the foreground sharp and the eye would accept the distance being less clear. As Mr. Launder mentioned below the difference between film and digital. I'll have a medium format once they sell used and a lower price.....much lower.
I always thought medium format was 'the' camera for landscape; so what you presented seemed odd. But what struck me was the leaf array, with - as you said - everything was on, essentially, the same plane - yet at f/16 everything was not tack sharp - that I know, is not the case with my images (full frame, 46mp), since I've taken similar images. I'm wondering if it is actually a lens issue - as opposed to a medium format phenomenon. It may be interesting to rent another similar length, quality lens and compare them side by side with your Fuji lens.
To me it didn't look like it was on the same plane , meaning , the lens wasn't straight up & down or , perpendicular to the seen. ( I could be wrong ). And important when shooting macro or shallow a depth of field aperture. What aperture was this shot at? And why if it was a shallow depth of field.
@@thomastuorto9929 I could be wrong, but wasn't at f/16? Also, I could be wrong, but it appeared to be a straight downward shot.
Don’t miss a thing… love my Olympus E-M1x!!
Thank you for this honest opinion. I don’t hear this problem often described as clearly as you do.
Mark, this is fantastic. I've been struggling with this. On same path as you (XT to GFX), and I have to stack everything. Other forums, etc. people basically blame the photographer or say use hyperfocal with apps, etc. Or that I don't understand hyperfocal, etc. Tried it all - you gotta stack. Thanks so much for this. I would love to see you edit that stack/time blend with the wave :)
great video, I needed this - thanks!
I remember when you were thinking about going medium format and I commented that you should think about depth of field. ;-) I just went to full frame from crop and I have to think more about the composition (maybe not a bad thing)
Everyone wants more pixels. A friend of mine shot a wedding with a D850 at 46mp he invited me to tag along and shoot with a d700 at 12mp by the time it was over his customers only purchased the photos at 12 mp. HIs photos where better but the butteryness of a lower pixel count on a full frame sensor made all the difference. Capturing every detail isn't allways a good thing, especially when the newlyweds have skin pores you can drive truck through.
I thought the old timers used f ratios like 32 or 64 on medium format film cameras (and tilt-shift lenses) to get around this. Just shows that no system is perfect - you just choose which set of compromises you are prepared to live with.
Yes, they did. That‘s why there was a group of photographers calling themselves f/64 - Ansel Adams among them. And that was large format. Since the digital medium format is not so much larger than the 35mm format, you just need to stop down on the larger sensor by one stop to basically achieve the same depth of field. That is to say a 23mm at f/22 on a Fuji GFX will produce pretty much the same depth of field as an 18mm at f/16 on a Sony A7* (in fact even a little more).
It wasn’t to get around it, it’s just the right one to use. f/45 on an 8x10 field camera is f/7.1 full frame equivalent. The GFX lenses go up to f/32 which is f/25 equivalent. You can go higher into the range before having problems with diffraction. He just needs to adjust his thinking.
@@stephenlloydco I was thinking the same. One problem might be the higher Mpix count of the GFX100s. On FF he mentioned having been using the A7RII from Sony, it is 42 Mpix and now he has 100 Mpix.
I’ve been shooting medium format film for years (Mamiya RB67). The thing that I still have trouble with is lens selection for my vision of the scene. Example: a 50mm on a full frame doesn’t give the same view as a 50mm on the medium format. I’ll put on a lens and then have to change it because I didn’t get the right one. I guess I should mention, all my medium format lenses are primes.
Fuji should hear this and add a focus stacking mode through firmware. touch the camera screen in three spots and take the picture.
It actually has an auto focus stacking feature
@@MarkDenneyPhoto Do you use it at all? My Nikon D780 has it and I have yet to use it. I haven't even researched if it is good or not. To be honest I am a creature of habit, forgot about the feature until just now, and do it manually when I do... Now I am curious if it's worth playing around with.
@globalimage Fujifilm's automatic stacking is even better than that. No need to touch the screen or manually choose focus poibts.
Aaron Reed did an article about this because it was the primary reason he returned all of the Fuji MF gear.
THANK YOU so much for this topic, you helped me make the decision to go with the X-T4 instead of the GFX 100S, for an upcoming trip to the California Sierra. I will be using the platform for panorama shots that I love so much of that mountain range. THANK YOU!
Ever since I saw the title, I was thinking depth of field. This is the reason I really wanted to go with micro 4/3... for really large dof. But because I am getting more into other arenas such as wildlife, macro, portrait, etc... I decided to stay with Canon so I could utilize current lenses and upgrade those slowly, and went with an R6. If any 4/3 sensor cameras had larger megapixel capability than 20, I might have switched, but medium format was never even a thought for me because aside from price, I knew dof would be a hassle.
Ansel Adams founded the F 64 school, he was known for the Hasselblad camera, is there an advantage to focus stacking vs DOF, I had a Bronica SETR1 film camera which I didn't use much because film is expensive. Digital is more spontaneous, Right now I have a Canon SL1, saving my money!
Medium Format generally is known for shallower depth of field so not surprising and not just due to sensor but definitely highlights the issue as your video so clearly demonstrates.
Thank you for this valuable piece of experience. For a moment I wondered how we dealt with depth of focus in the last century with analog large format cameras. Which are huge compared to digital medium format. But with such a camera you would make use of the Scheimpflug principle and tilt the lens. Unfortunately we can hardly do that with digital.
Thank you for this interesting report. I use two GFX cameras and wouldn't go back. The cameras are very good, the lenses excellent. In addition to the original lenses, I also use a Laowa 17 mm lens, which I consider to be very good as well. Diffractions are no problem even at apertures of 32. A modern full-frame camera costs at least as much and more. These cameras are ideal for landscape, precisely because they slow you down. Furthermore, the cameras have a great feel, are weatherproof and thus have some advantages over other medium format cameras. The issue with the DOP is correct, you have to change your approach a bit. But even with the GFX it is absolutely possible, you shoot a little differently. I never want to go back and I shoot much more carefully.
Same here - love the GFX system! 100s is the best camera I've ever used!
Fujifilm Australia kindly loaned me the original GFX50s 2 years ago and coming from the X-T3 I also found I had to focus stack quite a fair bit. It was a lesson I could have only learned from using the system. My biggest mistake was that I thought I can use it the exact same way as my X-T3. It's a different tool altogether. I think we also get too bogged down these days having everything tack sharp. A mildly soft background, especially in landscapes create better image depth, at least in my opinion. With the GFX50sII and the technology to focus bracket, I have been waiting for an update to allow focus stacking to spit out one image processed in-camera with front to back in focus. Pixel shift pretty much does something similar so why not??? Fujifilm please be the first to do it.
Haha, that‘s a big one! I came from aps-c and was tired of stacking to get bigger files for printing. Now, since my 50R produces bigger files, I am stacking to get sharp images from foreground to background 🤦♂️ But the sharpness, dynamic range and colour depth of MF Are still impressive.
Good 👍 information. Much food 🍲 for thought 💭 As always great 👍 job Mark.
The 23mm isn't terribly wide, nothing on the system is. How has that affected your process?
Also, would you consider doing a retrospective on the XF 8-16mm? I'm strongly considering it because of this channel, as well as all the fun I've had shooting with the ultra-wide on my phone. But it would be interesting to hear your thoughts after long term use.
It's a factor of simple optics. Very surprised you were never aware of this. Just stop down a couple of stops or 3 to compensate for the reduced DOF. f22 is easily usable and and slight softness with diffraction is easily processed out. It's no big deal. I've never had issues once you mentally re-calibrate to MF and are prepared to use higher ISO's (up to 800 it's essentially noise free and even above that the HiRes makes it usable with NR) if you need faster shutter speeds. The only issue I've had is astro/aurora as there are no fast wide lenses.
Thanks Mark! on the other hand , with larger sensors , diffraction sets in later compared to FF or apsc!
Interesting! And thanks for the info.
I must say that this video was extremely helpful in my consideration of jumping into the digital medium format camera market. I started my photo hobby with the 35mm camera , the HONEYWELL PENTAX SPOTMATIC. Shortly there after I got the medium format film camera bug, I purchased Thr MAMYIA 645 MEDIUM FORMAT FILM camera. I definitely loved the much larger negative film size of the 120 and the 220 format sizes.At that time I was photographing Miami, Florida sunsets and some weddings.Then when I got older and my unaided eye focus began to change as a result of me being unable to focus my phone accurately I jumped in the auto focus 35mm film camera market with my purchase of a NIKON N70. then I started to shoot sports action photography. I traded in the older Nikon N70 for the NIKON N90m me well
I often find it being a problem even with full frame.
Yep - I did as well when I used FF
You prolly need to change perhaps how you approach landscape scenes now. Instead of focusing on trying to find shots with necessary subjects requiring focus on all three planes, try and find those shots that are more minimalistic, singling out the solo subject from the scene, make the landscape work more 'portraiture' in nature. If nothing else it would be a new challenge and that can often stoke the fire and lead to new perspectives.
Thank you for the information.
I just upgraded from a G9 Micro 4/3 to an EOS R5 full frame, so I feel your pain! I couldn’t understand why so many of the zoom lenses were “only” f/4. I don’t think I have shot anything less than f/8, and even found myself cranking it up to f/16, something I never did before. FastRawViewer is now my new best friend. But so far I have a couple really great shots, along with a big pile of rejects: it’s a learning process.
You are already appreciated!
Hi Mark, recently switched to the Nikon Z6.
Great video! Thanks for sharing your insights. Off-topic question: Which watch band are you using? Kinda dig the yellow rugged outdoor vibe! Cheers
It seems the fact that the focus stacking is working well speaks to Fuji's attention to reducing focus-breathing with the G-Mount lenses.
Thanks for such a great vid Mark. Just bought a GFX 100S with a 23mm prime, so this info really interesting. 👍
Hi Mark, a really interesting insight, I'd never have thought that depth of field would be so challenging ... I'd have expected getting reliably sharp photos hand held would have been much more of the main issue with such a lot more resolution available. So another school day for me ... thanks for sharing.
Wow, thank you for pointing out the benefit/limitation. It seems for all but the completely stationary/tripod user with time to focus stack, this could be a major hinderance, especially if lighting requires the lens to be more open. Thank you for pointing this out.
You need a tilt lens to solve the DOF issue 😉
No issue other than in understand the things that affect depth of field, medium format / sensor size isn't one of them.
Theo biggest problem I have with medium format as a portrait photographer is that the focus on more megapixels has clouded the focus on sensor size! Still waiting on a "full frame" medium format mirrorless camera with 50-60mpix.
It’s a double edged sword. The DOF control is one of the benefits of larger formats for me. Back when I moved from ‘full frame’ film SLR to 1.5x crop APS-C DSLR in 2004 I really noticed how my zoom lenses couldn’t give me the really shallow DOF that I really enjoy in parts of my photography. To compensate I hard to get a few more primes lenses with wide aperture like f/1.8 (just occurred to me there’s lots of people probably don’t know that it’s quoted as f over 1.8 for the reason that’s it’s a ratio). I had/have Pentax gear so when they released their full frame K-1 i was straight out to get it, not because I needed a bigger camera with 36mp images but because it gives me more shallow DOF control, even with a zoom. But the flip side there are times you wish you had more than stopping down to f/11 or even f/16 will give you. It’s an artistic thing for me. Now I’ve also got a Fuji X-E4 and I’m trying to get used to the smaller sensor again. So I’m having to invest in f/1.4 and f/2 primes again for Fuji. Two sides to the same story….
I have a Canon RF but I really want your old GameBoy !!!😂
🤣🤣NEVER!!!
Great video mate
hello Mark, I only recently switched to the GFX system and at the beginning I produced a lot of blurry photos. Photos from the hand were great and photos from the tripod were blurry. that was to despair. then by chance I discovered where the problem is. when I take pictures from the tripod I switch the IS off. I put that on the monitor as a swiping gesture. since then the problem has been resolved.
Anselm Adams did never focus stack, he never used medium format.
;-)
Here's the thing. Most images you showed can be captured in high-res mode on something like an Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark III on a tripod at 80 megapixels. At base ISO, the results will be very similar to whatever other camera you compare it to. And you won't have to focus stack. You will get faster shutter speeds with smaller sensors.
I shoot actual medium format (not these crop medium format cameras you refer to as medium format), for example I shoot 6 by 9 on 120 film. If you want foreground to background in focus, you need to stop down to the likes of f22 or smaller. Let's say you shoot on Velvia 50, that means you have REALLY slow shutter speeds. You gotta ask yourself: how large do I REALLY need to enlarge/print? Versus: what shutter speeds do I need? How much light do I have?
Excited about the eventual 4x5 large format digital camera with a 1GP sensor that requires 15 shots to get everything in focus. :)
🤣🤣It's going to be amazing!
I now Know why they dont make a 100 to 400mm lens, I went out with My GFX 100 and a the 250mm to Photograph Birds in Flight where you pay to go in. I did not get 1 Bird that was flying in focus, I got a Lot of Great Shots of them on the Post where they fly from A to B post and I used my 110mm as well for the Birds that could not fly at all. I am going to buy the Nikon Z9 for birds
Why are you not using that brilliant depth of field scale that Fuji includes on the xt3 and GFX cameras? I have this scale visible in the EVF and LCD screen on my xt3. It is well marked in feet and very accurate. Takes the place of the scale on my old Nikkor wide angle from my film days. This gives you an accurate readout of your depth of field. Even the Nikon Z7 doesn't have this, but Fuji does. It's a great tool.
In spite of the shallow depth of field, it is a beast !!! ; -)
I knew this is where you were going as soon as I saw the title :o) It's a real thing, for sure, and some avoid using MF for landscape for exactly this reason. It definitely takes more skill and attention to get the full benefit of a camera like 100s, but it will reward those who do. If just want something that's easy to get full field in focus, crop sensor is a good option, or MFT, even better yet.
Thanks very much for sharing. I would never have thought of this, and being mainly a landscape photographer, I'll stay with my full frame mirrorless camera for now.
Glad to do it Warren - the GFX100s is by far the best camera I've ever used, but you just have to be aware with such a large sensor also comes with an extreme shallow depth of field - which can be a good thing too:)
I found the same with my GFX100S, but once you know the DoF is shallow, it's not a big issue. For me, the slowness of the HS burst has been a pain point a couple of times. Specifically when trying to burst catch crashing waves. On my Nikon Z7, it was a breeze, but it was tough with the GFX. One thing I absolutely love with the GFX is long exposure. First, it allows for much longer long exposures and late-blue hour scenes are so incredibly clean and detailed with "the beast". Excellent video Mark showing a balanced opinion on the medium format range. I see in the FB group a lot of people buying this camera for fast/run-and-gun types of photography and being frustrated. More balanced reviews like this can help set the right expectations.
My Google Pixel 6 Pro arrives today... It's the future 😎
Thank you.
To be honest I’ve had crop sensors for a long time and I recently went from a Nikon d500 to a Sony A7RIV and I’ve seen exactly the same thing. I’m focus stacking loads more now. I had a feeling you were going to say the same thing when I clicked play
From my understanding, the reason you need to focus stack that much is not a result of the larger sensor size itself, but because you're shooting at 100 MP! You're just seeing more extremely fine detail you would not see on a smaller sensor. On a heavy professional tripod like that where you can shoot at any shutter speed, I'm quite certain that you can use an equivelent focal length and aperture with any size sensor as any other size sensor and you will have an identical optical result in terms of depth of field and field of view. Maybe you're running into limits because you are used to shotting at f/11 or smaller on your APSC, so don't have any smaller apertures left to go to? That would make sense. There's a reason the Ansel Adams folks (8 x 10 inch plate film!) call themselves "f/64".
Admittedly, the sensor is larger than a Small Format (24x36) but it is smaller than a 36x48 MF and still much smaller than a "full frame" MF (42x56 more or less). I use a Hasselblad H5D-60 with a "full frame MF" sensor, whose rendering (associated with the original Hasselblad H lenses from Fujinon) is unmatched by the "small" MFs. Anyway (and I will only talk about the portrait because it is my specialty), what makes the difference between the Medium Format and the Small Format 24x36, is the incredible difference in rendering, especially for large MF sensors. There really is a universe in between. The small MF sensors are for me "big 24x36" rather than "real MF", and this is clearly visible in terms of rendering.
What an interesting thing. I for sure haven't heard this about the gfx system but it makes sense.
I'm a hobbyist and I shoot a Nikon D780. It suites my needs very nicely.
Really interesting points! Thanks for summing this up.
Mark, there seems to been not good examples on the web showing the difference between what a landscape photographer would consider tack sharp vs acceptably sharp vs soft. I think doing a video showing side by side pictures of each would really help
Like others mentioned, why f16? I would have gone to f32 on the medium format..... but just talking theoretically as I have not tried the GFX system (yet). On the other hand, in another one of your videos you show how much more detail the GFX got in comparison. How do those two things stack against each other? The XT4 seems to have more depth of field but less detail overall, the GFX shallower DOF but more detail. I am shooting on an X-H1 right now and thinking of getting the 50R (I don't like PASM dials so the new 50S II is a no-go for me).
Hi Mark, I have a question as well. I'm thinking of medium format I want to take my Photography to the next level. I do really well out of my landscape photography in a little place called Albany Western Australia. My work is quite known in Western Australia and I'm doing really well we're selling landscapes calendars and other things and probably 6 to 8 prints a month which is really nice because it's not a full-time job for me. I did wonder about switching to medium format and I really love the Fuji film system and now the GFX 50 S2 has really come down in price. Medium format in Australia is now suddenly affordable and I'm really keen to maybe get this camera with a couple of lenses because I can actually afford it. I've tended to use the hyper focal method in all of my landscape photography and I understand that really well I'm not a fan of stacking and I'll tell you why because I actually don't think it looks very natural. I don't want the mountains in the background to Pin sharp if that is not the focus of the photo.
True Mark, I have the Pentax 645z, same "issue"
I have the 50S, and have encountered the issue also. I don't much like focus stacking. Quite often I see imperfections at the joins, so prefer to shoot 1 shot. What about closing down the aperture as a remedy? Over time, I have got used to F/22 as my wide DoF landscape goto aperture rather than F/11 or F/16. In my experience the GF lenses can take it without noticeable distortion.
Focus stacking... but, what was the aperture while shooting the single photo?
I’ve noticed much wider depth of field with my Nikon z50 vs. my D810. Honestly for landscape I’m liking the smaller sensor camera more and more because of the depth of field. Certainly weddings and portraiture is where full frame and medium format excel.
Thank you !!!!!