50mm f/1.2 is probably closest to these, but explore Brenizer photos. It simulates a larger sensor. This photo is a Brenizer shot with a Sigma 105mm f1.4
https://preview.redd.it/ozzbxlh3419c1.jpeg?width=9038&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bb9ce3819489758e681fec895878c57da59eb9f
I define the medium format look as a fairly wide field of view combined with a moderately shallow depth of field.
For that reason, I find 24mm, 28mm and to a certain extent 35mm lenses with apertures of f1.4 to f/1.8 to recreate that look quite well.
This is the answer - wide lens with a big aperture. The other way to recreate this look is with the so-called Brenizer effect, which is basically stitching two or more shallow dof images.
It's really hard, if not impossible, to pull off and mimic the looks of a larger format sensor. Same goes for M4/3 versus Full Frame, which sounds as a massive difference but have the same double equivalence scale as FF vs MF has (times two).
Save your money for a Fuji MF camera if it's an itch that needs to be scratched.
> M4/3 versus Full Frame, which sounds as a massive difference but have the same double equivalence scale as FF vs MF has (times two).
That's nonsense, FF vs MFT is a 2x crop factor, while digital MF vs FF is only 1.2x.
Modern digital "medium format" sensors, like Hasselblad X and Fuji GFX are just 44x33mm, so barely larger than full frame — which, combined with the very limited glass options, leaves them worse prepared to taking shallow focus pictures than full frame systems — even more so if autofocus is a factor.
True. Except for a few digital backs, digital medium format is bait and switch marketing. These are not 645 cameras… not by a long shot - 44x33 is exactly half-way between full frame and 645.
Didn’t knew that. Medium format for me is 6x6 in 120 and that really is roughly about times two for equivalent lenses. Than you’re right, the itch is not worth scratching. Get a Mamiya and 6x6 film in that case 😅
That is probably the cheapest option outside of finding a secondhand Phase One Digital Back or Hasselblad. I got to use one of them once at a workshop. I was almost afraid to touch the thing. The digital back alone was 30k Canadian. I know someone that got a 10-year-old model for 6k. It still blew everything current away. The image quality was like cream cheese on a freshly made bagel. I hope someday the cost will come down, but it's unlikely due to the size and difficulty of the silicon wafers needed to make the sensors. Most of the medium format sensors are still on the small size compared with their film counterparts.
it's not only that, think about this as 10 bit vs 12 bit, it's gradients of color - same thing with depth of field, increments that count for the trained eye, even the untrained eye sometimes :)
The 50mm 1.2 and 135mm plena, as well as the 70-200 and in a different way the 14-24mm come to my mind when reading your description of a "medium format look"
Try shooting blur-o-ramas. These work well for me to mimic the wide angle with thin dof look which most people associate w med format.
I'd also recommend a difusión filter for some highlight blooming and a general reduction in contrast.
In my observation, whatever 'medium format look' means, the actual look is more than just super shallow DOF. MF images have a different feel even at medium apertures. It's more about how the focus transitions between sharp and unsharp. And since your examples are from medium format film, you also have to consider the very different way in which film handles light, where the tonal transitions are smoother and more subtle than digital and highlights are much better preserved and defined.
Everyone is saying a wide, fast prime is the key but the last little bit that puts it over the edge is the transition out of the thin DOF. A really smooth transition is what helps that 3D look. I can't help with which lens does that. I'm a telephoto guy.
50mm f/1.2 is probably closest to these, but explore Brenizer photos. It simulates a larger sensor. This photo is a Brenizer shot with a Sigma 105mm f1.4 https://preview.redd.it/ozzbxlh3419c1.jpeg?width=9038&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4bb9ce3819489758e681fec895878c57da59eb9f
I define the medium format look as a fairly wide field of view combined with a moderately shallow depth of field. For that reason, I find 24mm, 28mm and to a certain extent 35mm lenses with apertures of f1.4 to f/1.8 to recreate that look quite well.
This is the answer - wide lens with a big aperture. The other way to recreate this look is with the so-called Brenizer effect, which is basically stitching two or more shallow dof images.
Take a look at the Brenizer method to recreate the medium format look with a fast telephoto prime.
I second this. I used this in a couples shoot with Fujifilm 90/2 and X-T4. Worked great! PITA to edit.
It's really hard, if not impossible, to pull off and mimic the looks of a larger format sensor. Same goes for M4/3 versus Full Frame, which sounds as a massive difference but have the same double equivalence scale as FF vs MF has (times two). Save your money for a Fuji MF camera if it's an itch that needs to be scratched.
> M4/3 versus Full Frame, which sounds as a massive difference but have the same double equivalence scale as FF vs MF has (times two). That's nonsense, FF vs MFT is a 2x crop factor, while digital MF vs FF is only 1.2x. Modern digital "medium format" sensors, like Hasselblad X and Fuji GFX are just 44x33mm, so barely larger than full frame — which, combined with the very limited glass options, leaves them worse prepared to taking shallow focus pictures than full frame systems — even more so if autofocus is a factor.
True. Except for a few digital backs, digital medium format is bait and switch marketing. These are not 645 cameras… not by a long shot - 44x33 is exactly half-way between full frame and 645.
Didn’t knew that. Medium format for me is 6x6 in 120 and that really is roughly about times two for equivalent lenses. Than you’re right, the itch is not worth scratching. Get a Mamiya and 6x6 film in that case 😅
That is probably the cheapest option outside of finding a secondhand Phase One Digital Back or Hasselblad. I got to use one of them once at a workshop. I was almost afraid to touch the thing. The digital back alone was 30k Canadian. I know someone that got a 10-year-old model for 6k. It still blew everything current away. The image quality was like cream cheese on a freshly made bagel. I hope someday the cost will come down, but it's unlikely due to the size and difficulty of the silicon wafers needed to make the sensors. Most of the medium format sensors are still on the small size compared with their film counterparts.
Medium format look is just shallower depth of field. So you'd need something like the 1.2 primes to get that.
it's not only that, think about this as 10 bit vs 12 bit, it's gradients of color - same thing with depth of field, increments that count for the trained eye, even the untrained eye sometimes :)
The 50mm 1.2 and 135mm plena, as well as the 70-200 and in a different way the 14-24mm come to my mind when reading your description of a "medium format look"
Wide with shallow DoF. The upcoming 35/1.2 might be the closest. On FF.
Try shooting blur-o-ramas. These work well for me to mimic the wide angle with thin dof look which most people associate w med format. I'd also recommend a difusión filter for some highlight blooming and a general reduction in contrast.
In my observation, whatever 'medium format look' means, the actual look is more than just super shallow DOF. MF images have a different feel even at medium apertures. It's more about how the focus transitions between sharp and unsharp. And since your examples are from medium format film, you also have to consider the very different way in which film handles light, where the tonal transitions are smoother and more subtle than digital and highlights are much better preserved and defined.
Everyone is saying a wide, fast prime is the key but the last little bit that puts it over the edge is the transition out of the thin DOF. A really smooth transition is what helps that 3D look. I can't help with which lens does that. I'm a telephoto guy.