There's Nothing Magical About Medium Format Depth Of Field

Because it's not 6x6 (or 6x7) film... it's much smaller. That being said, you're now paying $1/click for Portra 400 on 120 if you're shooting 6x6, even more if you're shooting 6x7. It's not at all economical for hobbyists. I can print Instax cheaper than that.

Anytime I have ever had this argument with someone it has always been based on the same f stop, not equivalent f stop. I stick with my argument, you get more background blur with a medium format vs full frame or apsc

Apeture is just how big your lens opens to let light go through. A 50mm lens at f/2 will have an apeture of 25mm no matter what sensor size you're shooting on, so the DoF will be the same. If you have 3 cameras apsc, ff, mf line up at the same spot and focus at the same point you have the same DoF. It's the field of view that's different. So in order the get the same field of view the apsc camera has to move back further than the FF, and the FF camera further than the MF - that's the actual reason why we have to multiply the f-stop - because the DoF changes when you're further/closer to the subject.

The confusion happens because there is no real medium format digital camera. Medium format is 120 film or equivalent size. That was what every photographer refered to with film and nobody would dare to say otherwise. Calling what PhaseOne and hasselblad produce today "medium format" is misleading and, IMHO, bordering on dishonest. The issue is that so many years of digital 35mm have created a whole group of photographers who are unaware of the options available in medium and large format. There is a LOOK (not dof or bokeh) of medium format and that is caused by using longer lenses with a shorter distance to the subject. That perspective is unique of MF and, more pronounced, of Large Format. And that cannot be recreated by 35mm, either film or digital.

My thoughts before I start watching the video is basically that if you take a portrait with a telephoto on apsc, you have to stand every far away bringing your subject into the wide dof zone, where as a telephoto on medium format allows you to get closer more effectively Separating the dof zones

Medium format is about tonality not depth of field.

If anything this convinced me there is a difference. Didn’t know F2 full frame was better than F2 apsc

so its just in my head ? amazing work guys !!!

First of all, another awesome video, even though I am like 1 year late to it...BUt what you are confirming is hat in order to maintain the same DoF in smaller sensors you need larger apertures! So I would argue that definitely it is easier to get shallower DoF with the MF than with the FF and with the FF it's easier than with the ASPC...Might be just semantics, but using the same lens with the three sensors, while the angle of view or apparent focal distance changes, aperture does not. F2 is F2 in any sensor. Now, the larger the sensor the most difficult/expensive to build large apperture lenses. An APS-C F1.6 lens is cheaper than an F3.5 MF lens. And yet there would be no gain in terms of DoF. In orther to have a gain you would need a F2.8 or F2...So, looking at this way, yes, nothing magical or special about MF.

As a M4/3 shooter, my only problem is mostly not the depth of field, but the low light performance, and there is no alternative for something like a 50mm f1.8, or a 24mm f2.0 so in that case, much cheaper to invest into a full frame camera, insted of a fast m4/3 lense

Extremely poor video. I have compared GFX 100S pictures with Full Frame and the difference is so big you won't believe without seeing by yourself. Pictures taken from GFX cameras are very "Grand". They look imposing and life-like. I detected a huge difference as soon as I started comparing pictures from both sensors. APSC is not even in the game.

Other than what other people pointed I am also interested in the compression a longer lens will give you. I love thé 85mm field of view but i want to get more background compression. The only way to do it is to go on larger sensor and use a longer lens. Same applies for crop sensors. 56mm can give you 85mm but not in the compression of an 85mm lens.

This is unfair 😢, keep everything thing same, thats why we pay more for larger sensor, more light and info at same aperture

Full frame is the king of photography

This video gave me a headache 😭😭😭😭

The magic was with film Medium format cameras. My experience with the fuji GFX was nothing like this. It was a horrible excuse of a camera.

Clearly the three influences are
Depth, of, and field

the biggest thing missed here is how wide closups look between different sensor sizes. essentially with a medium format camera the persons nose and other features will be flatter and more natural while they will appear larger and more distorted in full frame and apsc as you are bending the light more. this has to do with needing a wider focal length for the same fov when shooting with smaller sensors.

You completely forgot that medium format with a 1.4 or even 1.7 lens, even a 1.7 FF would be 1.3 and apsc .85. And the compression differences for portraits with a 110mm over 85 or 56. And there are no equivalent lenses for 1.4 medium format lens and forget the 85 f1.2 or 90 f1.25. And what about my Phase one or Mamiya which uses a 54x40 sensor verse apsc 25x16, that sensor is 4 or 5 times the size of apsc. Your statement only works when not using the widest aperture available on each sensor when comparing to apsc.

I watched this video multiple times, you can’t convince me that the aps-c sensors give a feeling of depth of field that isnt flat and the medium format pops in that category. Now full frame just has the best parts of medium format but medium just pops in a way that’s insanely easy to see and feel, and im a novice. I just can’t see aps-c touching the natural depth FF or medium format have

So many triggered MF users here 😂😂

I actually grew up with relatively mild astigmatism for most of my life. Although it was a mild diagnosis it resulted in pretty severe nearsightedness in which I could very easily perceive things close and in front of me but I struggled to see detail in things that were more than a couple of feet away. It was something I just lived with and didn't recognize it as a problem until I was having issues at school and my mom took me to get my eyes checked.

I have found that I just prefer the look of shallow depth of field because its what I grew up with. I associated warm and intimate feelings with things I could perceive to be in focus. While the background is an important element to photography, I feel like in many instances it is not necessary to see the totality of a scene tack sharp for an image to be good or convey strong and relatable feelings. This is coming from someone that prefers subject photography and city-scapes.

To be frank, the only reason I have even considered medium format is because of the excellent color rendition of Fujifilm. I have been doing alot of research on Sony and Lumix respectively (Full Frame and MFT systems) and have not been able to find a workflow in which I wouldn't have to do tons of post processing in order to achieve the same color science that comes mostly built into fuji's jpegs and raws.

As a photographer that been shooting for over 40years I strongly disagree with you

the problem with this video is that, you don't choose Medium format size camera for its depth of field. You choose it for the image quality, great detail and colors.

Is there a difference, yes, super noticeable, nope, replicatable, not really. lemme explain:
* Lets assume parallel rays come in and exit the rear lens at an angle to meet in the center of the sensor... (most diagrams are drawn like this)
* Now, notice the rays form a cone if you will, like this: >
* Whats important is that flange distance sometimes in medium format, of the distance from the back lens to the folcal plane is longer, then the cone angle is smaller.
* Ok, when something goes out of focus with a longer cone (focus in front or behind the focal plane) there is now a little circle on the sensor.
* the size of this circle also changes with the angle of that cone, hence the flange distance.
* if you have a long flange distance than something far out of focus doesnt seam to be that out of focus..
* when the flange distance is short, that cone angle is big and things can jump out of focus faster and even more out of focus the further things are.

This was a tough one for me when I went to medium format, I couldnt get super out of focus fall off, the out of focus was so gradual I kept going back to my full frame for some shots. Dont misunderstand me, the medium format had more out of focus, and thinner focus plane where I was shooting beauty at f/16-f/22.

Overall what I saw the major difference was thinner focal plane and smoother transitions in the focal range

With all other things being equal, the bigger the sensor, then better the image. At least the DR, low light ISO and noise

I lost you at "we're gonna..."
But thanks for the review!

“We’re not going to move the tripod forward or backward.” And therein is the problem. With medium format you can move the camera further forward and maintain wider FOVs and get more background separation. Most of the DOF change is accomplished with the moving of the feet. By making everything equivalent it kind of defeats the test in some ways. The entire reason medium format is desireable is that they aren’t equivalent. That’s where the look comes from.

I am telling this for more than a hundred times.
Given the same aperture, it's just the magnification of the image that plays a part here.

I think the DOF thing is only more noticeable in the 90mm range and up for medium...and yes you can get that on a FF camera but you need like a hugh jazz aperture...something bigger than 1.2

The flaw in your argument is you are fixing the tripod and cropping …. the difference shows when you try to FILL THE FRAME…!! that what you are missing.

In most of these examples, the DOF is actually LESS dramatic, just a touch, in the Medium Formats. I am a firm believer that medium format is perfect for portraiture, and landscapes. You can use any camera for any job if you're good at what you do, but they really shine in those two areas. Especially in landscapes and NIGHT landscapes. They really are prefect for those.

When converting from 645 to full Frame 35mm why does he use x0.8 when others use x0.62 ???
Am I missing something here?

i think this is where the misconception comes from. when talking about equivalency, most people are aware that 35 mm in APS-C will have the same look as around 52 mm in FF, but they don't realize that the aperture would need to be adjusted as well. and they just end up comparing 52 mm in f/2 in FF having more bokeh vs 35mm in f/2 in APS-C (while in fact based on the exact equivalency, they should have done 52 mm in f/2.8 -- closest number to f/3 since there is no f/3). the media has not helped either by always mentioning the equal zoom for FF in sentences like, "16 mm lens, or equal to 24 mm in FF", but then not mentioning the equivalent aperture.

and another reason for the misconception is just based on lens availability. say i have a 50 mm f/1.2 lens in FF and i love that look. to get that same look in APS-C, i would need to get a 35 mm f/0.8 and well, good luck finding a lens like that. because of that, people then start saying that FF is better than APS-C since frankly, it can produce images that APS-C just can't. (or maybe it can if that lens is available, but im sure it would be very expensive).

I think the only (but artistically very important) difference is compression (background more close to the subject). In medium format, you get the same field of view as the apsc/fullframe, but with more compression, it's like using a 35mm lens with the compression of a 50mm lens.

Doesn’t shooting at equivalent depth of field defeat the purpose of the test? Shoot at the highest commonly available aperture at a given angle of view and show us the difference.

But the equivalency is the key.
I can very well have 1.2f on 35mm for full frame and I won't be able to buy equivalent lens (0.75f) for ASP-C, hence bigger sensor => shallower DOF possible.

all the test shots are terrible

The APC-C SLR cameras are not significantly smaller in camera body size than full frame SLR cameras. So why even bother making SLR's anything but full frame. The size difference is really not enough to say they are more portable or much lighter. For mirrorless cameras with pancake lenses, the APS-C makes more sense, but still barely once larger lenses are used.

I'll stick with full frame, where lenses don't have to be in the low F numbers and thus correspondingly more expensive.

Just put the same lens wide open on the three cameras and let's talk about results :p

The mistake you've made here is not including MF film in this test. Digital MF vs Digital standard is not much better, but MF Film vs 35mm film is miles ahead in results.

I feel like this video misses the point. No one is concerned about how to make every image look the same across these cameras. People want to know how medium format CAN look different.

Take a 50mm f1.4 lens and try it on every one of these cameras with the same subject and compare them. Do the same with a 135mm lens, and with an ultra wide lens and compare the differences.

There is a difference in how each sensor size affects the image, but you will never see that if you are only focused on how to make them look identical.

Also it is important to show the larger sensor medium format cameras, regardless of how expensive they are, since we are specifically looking at how sensor size affects the images produced.

The advantage of full frame is, that you get 2.8 lenses and there arent similar 1.6/1.8 zoom lenses on APSC (24-70, 70-200, 16-35) or MF.

From my point of view, you get more than enough with APSC with 2.8 lenses and small 1.4 primes, which are smaller and maybe get the benefit of nearer focussing distance (like 18-50 2.8 Sigma).

For a small amount of image quality, I wouldnt want to carry so much stuff around. How often do you really pixelpeep your pictures days/month/years AFTER taking them or printing walls.

In that depth of field comparison, you changed the f stop to get them to match. All things being equal, the medium format will have more bokeh.

It's helpful to remember, that a lens will always retain the DOF characteristics of its focal length regardless of its FOV. For example, even though my 75mm lens on my 645 film camera has a FOV of 47mm its DOF characteristics are determined by its 75mm focal length. So it has the FOV of a normal lens & the DOF of a short telephoto. Hope that helps :-)

It’s about the fall off not the amount.

Ok, well here's the way I look at it and I'm not even going to bother with comparing all three. Lets consider DX vs FX. Yes, there are equivilencies. BUT, heres the thing, There is a finite ability to make lenses brighter.. And this might not scale in terms of R&D and Prices to Medium Format, because there is less of a market. But technically as a rule these equivilencies only work in one direction. And that is toward larger format lenses requiring LESS of large Fstop to acomplish the same Depth of field fall off. And going the other direction is no great challenge.. This is indisputable. Also indisputable is that brighter lenses are more complex and difficult to make and keep quality edge to edge within wide open parameters. So YES there are eqivilencies. But how are you going to accomplish the mathmatical equvilent of a an FX format 50mm F/1.2 lens on a DX Format? You would need to buy a DX 35mm f/.8. And they do not exist. So realistically you can get more bang out of your lenses with the larger formats. My FX F/1.8's which are affordable give me effects that would require an expensive DX f/1.2 lense There is a limit to the ability to use equivilencies because there is a limit to what lenses can be made that will actually fit on a handheld camera and not cost the same as a house. FX is a nice sweet spot, but as I mentioned you get more bang for your Fstop buck on the lower wide open end, the engineering spec end, the larger the sensor is. THIS is why people talk about the advantages of larger formats for a certain quality of image that can be obtained with available lenses that don't break the bank, and have the advantage of actually existing and being quite good. Databyter

Medium format digital is a waste of money for me , for large prints i shoot with my old Bronica Analoge the quality still cannot be beaten .

well said,, ,, ,,,,,,, finally somebody who did the tests and proves he isnt fooled by the hype of MF !!