Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brad P on April 20, 2017, 01:43:56 am
-
I imagine this topic was posted before. But Trump is the US President, it's not yet 100 days, and that may change everything.
Readers might appreciate thoughtful LuLa thinking on a few questions about what you, dear reader, for your work, would buy into if forced to sell every last bit of your gear, lenses, tripods, peripherals and all, and reinvest into high end photography right now. What would it be? Can it print big if necessary? Phase, Hasselblad, Mamiya or Leaf owners are especially invited to comment. You are pretty quiet here recently. And your used equipment is becoming affordable to most readers (especially an eBay post in Australia right now, mostly notable for its lenses rather than its 6 year old 40MP PO back).
I'm leaning tonight toward the following, in order, and have zero affiliation with anyone. My proposed investment horizon is 5 years.
(a) Canon 5DSr + all Otuses (mirrorless supplanting 35mm lenses within 5 years an issue, dynamic range an issue, 250MP a pipe dream. A promise of competent DR and 100 MP in 2 years?).
(b) Nikon d810 + all Otuses (Nikon's financial wherewithal an issue, mirrorless supplanting existing 35mm lenses an issue, upward bound resolution an issue).
(c) GFX and its wider lenses as they roll out (lens focus, especially when untouched for 16 shots (see Kasson write up - firmware upgrades may not fix)) an issue, and lens corner QC an issue.
(d) D1X and its wider lenses as they roll out (rear bokeh almost a nonstarter, and reliability of lens roll out an issue).
I ask because I've developed camera and pinhole shoebox film by hand, dodging and burning, 45 years ago. Had a career of sorts since then, but in between never lost the optical bug. I've moved around from Nikon to Canon to Sony as my own major platform the last 20 years, selling that each off as I maddeningly switch. I want to buy in this time for the long term and imagine there might be other readers or posters who do too.
-
I think with FF a 100MP sensor in two years is a pipe dream. Not gonna happen. Perhaps in 5 years. Next step will be 60-70 in FF and in 2-3 years 100 in the GFX factor and 150MP at full size MF.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Totally onboard.
-
Well I think the main reason there are lot of 35mm people commenting in the MF section are that need to somehow justify themselves. The MF guys just shake their heads and wonder why they think focal plane shutters and 63 point AF are necessary for portrait and landscape. Anyway, I digress ..
I have the 5Ds and I took it on a trip for landscape recently and came back disappointed. I will be going back shortly with the H3DII-39. I still think the 8 year old MF is better than the new 50MP 35mm in image quality.
There is some cheap gear. People are selling it to buy the new small toys and that to me is great. Hasselblads cheaper than Canons. Woohoo!
-
Get it and don't for a second disagree. I have Nikon pics that surprise me 15 years or so later. I may need to reprocess them. Lightroom and camera raw are pretty good 3 or maybe even 15 years out, dynamic range wise. But they can never get back the resolution.
-
If you are not in a hurry, I would wait for the Sony a9r and D850 before making any such decision. ;)
If you are in a hurry, I would decide based on whether you like OVFs or EVFs in terms of shooting experience. That may be the most important decision factor in the end.
If you like OVF -> D810 (now)/D850(later)/645Z
If you like EVF -> a7rII (now)/a9r(later)/X1D/GFX depending on your budget and itch to be an "MF" owner. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Loved your shot of the Tokyo alley. Almost made me think like I lived there again (and we did, 2000-2003ish). About the most peaceful and fun place we have ever lived. Hope it's still about the same.
-
Loved your shot of the Tokyo alley. Almost made me think like I lived there again (and we did, 2000-2003ish). About the most peaceful and fun place we have ever lived. Hope it's still about the same.
Thanks. ;)
No major changes in Tokyo in those parts of town.
Now there have been some important developments projects in Shimbashi/Shiodome, the South part of Shinjuku, Roppongi (mid-town, not sure if Roppongi Hills was already there in 2003), Osaki,... currently the East exit in Shibuya..., but the spirit of the city remains the same.
Roppongi Hills is where I had the chance to have dinner with Michael once 7-8 years ago btw. Long time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My favorite place outside of Tokyo was outside of Tokyo. One place was Kamakura and the long walkway. Another was Hakone to be in the countryside, another was Kyoto and another was an afternoon overnight climb to the top of Fuji san for sunrise. I wish I had whatever camera I am looking at now then. Seriously, I very much miss Nihon. Enjoy it while you can.
Now to cameras. The X1D lenses released so far appears to me to have octangular, geometric lens bokeh from available images, and if that's right, that afflicts the whole X1D image quality, overtly and subliminally. A non starter for what I do.
-
The cameras depends on what you want to shoot. I have tried most of them. If you want to spend the bucks, the X1D is a nice camera, so is the Nikon D810. However, I would wait to see what Nikon and Sony come up with for the landscape shoots. I have the D810, the A7rII, and the X1D.
-
My favorite place outside of Tokyo was outside of Tokyo. One place was Kamakura and the long walkway. Another was Hakone to be in the countryside, another was Kyoto and another was an afternoon overnight climb to the top of Fuji san for sunrise. I wish I had whatever camera I am looking at now then. Seriously, I very much miss Nihon. Enjoy it while you can.
Thks, it's been almost 20 years and I still enjoy most of it as much as I did the first year. My wife and I love Kamakura where we have a direct train access to from our home.
Now to cameras. The X1D lenses released so far appears to me to have octangular, geometric lens bokeh from available images, and if that's right, that afflicts the whole X1D image quality, overtly and subliminally. A non starter for what I do.
Yep, no go for me too, why regress from my trio of Otus and Nikkors/excellent HC lenses? More generally speaking, I find it quite daring to invest in a new system like this right at availability knowing the complexity of these systems and the potential to find issues such as these bokeh issues with the otherwise lovely lenses. But anyway, it isn't my money. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Following through on the OP, we are approaching 100 days in the Trump presidency. I am not sure what tomorrow is going to bring. I certainly am not going to speculate what another 100 days is going to bring.
Same for cameras. I have a bunch of cameras in my drawers, and I am not sure which one I am going to use to tonight to photograph in a jazz club. Last week, it certainly wasn't going to be the Fuji GFX, but I may bring it tonight after last weekend's surprise.
We live with an industry that adheres to a Moore's law ethos. You are obviously having fun speculating, but you seem to be doing it along the pathway as we know it. But consider:
A. One of these days, Canon is going to have to make a serious run at the mirrorless.
B. PhaseOne, if it is smart, will address the GFX 50s and Hasselblad 1DX. I went for the expensive poor man's version of PhaseOne in the form of a Leaf 50 back. In two years it has suffered significant depreciation. With medium format now available at a third of the cost, I am very reluctant to repeat paying extreme premium prices. I don't need PhaseOne's seismograph, focus stacking, or warranty program. They've been at longer, but others will catch up in terms of getting the most out of a sensor. Assuming others share my perspective, PhaseOne is going to need to respond to this newer form of medium format.
C. I received a message from a friend last night out of the clear blue. We had messaged eight months ago about the X1D. As far as I know, he is not in that game. Yet, he was saying he would trade in two camera systems to purchase the Sony camera announced yesterday--20 frames per second, no blackout, silent shooting, 24mp-- if he were seriously shooting concerts. Based on his tone, I don't think he will do it tomorrow, but I think he is giving it serious thought longer term. Note: He is taking less pixels, but he is impressed with significant advances in other aspects of the technology.
D. You, like many others, seemed to be knocked out by the Otus lenses. Given the price of those lenses and the willingness of many to pay it, I have to believe there are other companies thinking about developing premium lenses.
For me, the only thing I can even begin to predict about the next five years is that I probably will not own a Canon camera and set of lenses unless Canon does something different. Time has answered the question. I now only use my Canon for Macro work. It used to go everywhere with me. Simple natural attrition.
In short, a five-year roadmap strikes me as pretty fanciful. Too much is happening. As I said, I don't know what equipment I am going to use tonight.
-
A big part of my decision is based on the company’s commitment to continue to support and further enhance their product. The high-end camera market is a difficult business considering all the changes in technology and considering the size of the market. For this reason, and several others, I have settled on Phase One as my primary camera company. I was very disappointed with the Phase 645DF+ but stayed with the company and feel I have made a good decision for me. I have the Nikon 810 and I’m happy with it but it’s a very different animal than the Phase XF100 and I use it for very different reasons. If they come out with a 50mp version it will still not suit me as a primary camera. Canon, to me, is not committed to the medium format market so I would not even consider them even though I used them for years. Fuji is interesting as I believe they are committed long-term to be a force in this market segment and they have demonstrated they continue to improve cameras. Obviously, Sony will be a player so I’m curious as to why you didn’t consider them. The next 5 years will be very interesting and likely very expensive!
-
Personally I think you need to choose a system that feels good to you. Renting or trying out someone's camera is the best way. Sometimes that's tough...but in reality it is the only way. Or buy on amazon and return. Regardless...if the camera isn't a specialized tool you need for a very specific task... or there are several that fit the bill spec wise... it is time to feel them out. The difference between a camera that is invisible in your hands and allows you to think only of the subject and not the camera is the proper camera to use. The camera that you love to hold, feels right, and delivers the results is ideal. Everything has its laundry list of negatives. At the same time, quality is at a ridiculously high point almost making it irrelevant. It is amazing what cameras can do today. Some cameras even with their negatives will feel so right you won't care. This is why Leica is still in business.
-
...
Now to cameras. The X1D lenses released so far appears to me to have octangular, geometric lens bokeh from available images, and if that's right, that afflicts the whole X1D image quality, overtly and subliminally. A non starter for what I do.
The octangular bokeh behavior has been observed only on one lens: XCD 90mm. The other lens that I own (XCD 45mm) has a regular bokeh. I have not heard that anyone has complained about bokeh on XCD 30mm lens. There is no reason to assume that other incoming X1D lenses will have octangular bokehs, but time will tell.
-
+1 to Tony's thoughts, it really needs to be a sticky in these forums. Don't worry about the future, worry about what you're shooting today, and tomorrow. We can all look back a few years and be reminded of a time without CMOS sensors in MF gear. In 5 years, I'll have purchased something else. What ever you purchase, make sure you can use it on day 1.
-
The octangular bokeh behavior has been observed only on one lens: XCD 90mm. The other lens that I own (XCD 45mm) has a regular bokeh. I have not heard that anyone has complained about bokeh on XCD 30mm lens. There is no reason to assume that other incoming X1D lenses will have octangular bokehs, but time will tell.
Any other confirmations the Octagon Disease struck only the 90? Especially, is the 30mm unafflicted? I could live without the 90, and it would bump the Hassy up a few notches in my mind anyway. I'd expect more aperture in the series after the initial roadmap is done too btw.
-
A few pics taken with the 45 at 3.5 show no octagons
-
Any other confirmations the Octagon Disease struck only the 90? Especially, is the 30mm unafflicted? I could live without the 90, and it would bump the Hassy up a few notches in my mind anyway. I'd expect more aperture in the series after the initial roadmap is done too btw.
You can see XCD 45mm bokeh examples on http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/hasselblad_xcd_45mm_f3_5_review/
Unless somebody reports otherwise, I assume the lenses do not have "Octagon Disease".
-
Hi,
I have another perspective…
A camera is an image making device. You put a lens in front, a tripod under, photographer behind. The part that really matters is the sensor.
I sort of have a list of requirements, like:
- Magnified liev view
- Electronic First Shutter curtain
- Decent DR
- Small enough pixels to reduce aliasing
- Enough pixels for my needs
- Be able to use tilts for Scheimpflug
- Decently working AF
- Good lens availability - adapter or original
- Articulated screen
- A few programmable presets
With a camera having the above functionality, I can do the images I want. Would I shoots sports, my needs may be different. Would I shoot outdoor flash, leaf shutters would be an advantage.
Best regards
Erik
Personally I think you need to choose a system that feels good to you. Renting or trying out someone's camera is the best way. Sometimes that's tough...but in reality it is the only way. Or buy on amazon and return. Regardless...if the camera isn't a specialized tool you need for a very specific task... or there are several that fit the bill spec wise... it is time to feel them out. The difference between a camera that is invisible in your hands and allows you to think only of the subject and not the camera is the proper camera to use. The camera that you love to hold, feels right, and delivers the results is ideal. Everything has its laundry list of negatives. At the same time, quality is at a ridiculously high point almost making it irrelevant. It is amazing what cameras can do today. Some cameras even with their negatives will feel so right you won't care. This is why Leica is still in business.
-
After putting my camera down for three weeks to research the state of play in high-end FF to through high end MF digital platforms, I've reached a point of diminishing returns.
The most important conclusion I come to is that a mirrorless revolution seems only beginning to unfold. As that continues, mirrorless platforms seem likely over the next 5 years to revalue all our gear like nothing since film. Possibly even more so because lenses will be changing to accommodate new focal points. If you see this too, you must see that it has now touched medium format.
Fuji and Hasselblad are formidable old MF names. Version 1 of each mirrorless implementation so far seems like version 1. Each is without acclaimed lenses. And that invites others. Zeiss Otus engineers hopefully are planning for mirrorless MF opportunities.
A state of profound transition for all of us who care about equipment. A time to be careful buying new stuff.
-
Hi,
My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.
I am pretty sure the lenses for the new GFX/X1D format are great! Sony has also presented a roadmap for the MFD sensors and 100 MP 44x33 mm will be with us next year.
But, seriously, although larger formats always have at least some benefits, smaller formats can be good enough. That really applies to anything.
Best regards
Erik
After putting my camera down for three weeks to research the state of play in high-end FF to through high end MF digital platforms, I've reached a point of diminishing returns.
The most important conclusion I come to is that a mirrorless revolution seems only beginning to unfold. As that continues, mirrorless platforms seem likely over the next 5 years to revalue all our gear like nothing since film. Possibly even more so because lenses will be changing to accommodate new focal points. If you see this too, you must see that it has now touched medium format.
Fuji and Hasselblad are formidable old MF names. Version 1 of each mirrorless implementation so far seems like version 1. Each is without acclaimed lenses. And that invites others. Zeiss Otus engineers hopefully are planning for mirrorless opportunities, including MF ones.
A state of profound transition for all of us who care about equipment. A time to be carefull buying new stuff.
-
I completely agree with Erik these smaller formats can be good enough and I would add are good enough! The truth is the XF100 is all the camera I ever need but it won't stop me from upgrading to a Phase with a 150mp sensor. I can't seem to help myself!!! GAS is a very powerful disease with not many treatment options!
-
Hi,
My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.
I am pretty sure the lenses for the new GFX/X1D format are great! Sony has also presented a roadmap for the MFD sensors and 100 MP 44x33 mm will be with us next year.
But, seriously, although larger formats always have at least some benefits, smaller formats can be good enough. That really applies to anything.
Best regards
Erik
Any time I here the words "blows away" these days my bullshit alarm goes off.
-
My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX. He has found a lot of issues with focusing on the GFX but he still feels that the GFX blows away the A7rII, even when that A7rII has the Otus 55 mounted.
Yes, and even today as I wake up he's already posted more proof that's the case. See http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/ and his other blogs there.
Being tied up for the moment in Sony FF myself, I've read every one of his GFX blogs. I've had a B&H shopping cart filled up with $16K of GFX goodies, more importantly obtained my wife's permission (at the cost of putting an old Swiss watch on eBay), but couldn't hit the checkout button.
What stopped me was the thought that a Sony A9R, very likely to be released around year end, might reverse those results (let's call that a 50% chance). Then what if Canon, Nikon, or Sony/Zeiss during the next year entered the mirrorless MF market (let's call one of those outcomes a 50% chance). I already had buyers remorse once the cart was full.
-
Hi,
In what way does the A9 relate to the GFX? One is a sport's shooters camera with moderate resolution and high capture rate while the other is ahigh resolution camera with slow capture rate. They serve different needs. The best Sony to compare to the GFX is the A7rII.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, and even today as I wake up he's already posted more proof that's the case. See http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/ and his other blogs there.
Being tied up for the moment in Sony FF myself, I've read every one of his GFX blogs. I've had a B&H shopping cart filled up with $16K of GFX goodies, more importantly obtained my wife's permission (at the cost of putting an old Swiss watch on eBay), but couldn't hit the checkout button.
What stopped me was the thought that a Sony A9R, very likely to be released around year end, might reverse those results (let's call that a 50% chance). Then what if Canon, Nikon, or Sony/Zeiss during the next year entered the mirrorless MF market (let's call one of those outcomes a 50% chance). I already had buyers remorse once the cart was full.
-
In what way does the A9 relate to the GFX? One is a sport's shooters camera with moderate resolution and high capture rate while the other is ahigh resolution camera with slow capture rate. They serve different needs. The best Sony to compare to the GFX is the A7rII.
Sorry, I should have emphasized my "R" more than I did. As with the A7 and A7ii, an "R" model typically comes out with something around 3 times the resolution. I am assuming the A9"R" might be 60-75MP. I'm sure that assumption comes with a lump of salt, but I have it in mind at a 50% likelihood anyway. It may be better than that percentage actually...
-
Hi,
There are some solid rumours about a 70+ MP full frame from Sony. That could be A9r or Sony A7rIII, may be even both.
Best regards
Erik
Sorry, I should have emphasized my "R" more than I did. As with the A7 and A7ii, an "R" model typically comes out with something around 3 times the resolution. I am assuming the A9"R" might be 60-75MP. I'm sure that assumption comes with a lump of salt, but I have it in mind at a 50% likelihood anyway. It may be better than that percentage actually...
-
Hi,
My friend Jim Kasson is blown away with the GFX.
Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.
I will say that I am hugely impressed (blown away wouldn't be far off) with the 120/4 Fuji macro lens. Even the 63 is pretty darned impressive for its price (but it does have those focusing issues -- I hope that Fuji sorts them out in a FW release).
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.
Thanks putting things in perspective.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.
I will say that I am hugely impressed (blown away wouldn't be far off) with the 120/4 Fuji macro lens. Even the 63 is pretty darned impressive for its price (but it does have those focusing issues -- I hope that Fuji sorts them out in a FW release).
Jim
-
Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.
I hope that I didn't use those words about the camera in general. If you can find it, please let me know. Just talking about the body, I find it an impressive offering, but it's not in the category of the a7RII for me. Now that was a breakthrough.
Always appreciate your comments, Erik.
Jim
-
Erik, I think "blown away" would be overstating my impressions. The test that involved printing images taken with Otus lenses on both the a7RII and the GFX showed that, even with 30inch-high prints, the improvements are subtle.
So, does that jstify the important extra cost now and in anticipatin of the availabilty of an a9r in less than 6 months?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products. Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor? If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.
The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.
-
I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products. Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor? If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.
The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.
They make a lot more profit selling cameras than just sensors.
And many buyers of cameras featuring the 33x44 sensor are attracted to it due to the mythical qualities of MF.
Having a 50+ 35mm sensors will not have a significant negative impact on the sales of those small MF sensors. Besides this is already old story for Sony semi-conductors, they already sold a majority of those 33x44mm, including those to be used in the majority of the X1D and GFX bodies that will sell. They are now focused on the second versions of those cameras with the 100mp 33x44mm chip.
So all in all, I am 100% sure that a higher res a9r is coming with anywhere btw 50 and 70mp.
Another way to look at it is that the availability of an excellent 20mp 1 inch sensor in the RX100 series has never been seen by Sony as risking to endanger the sales of their best selling 24mp APS-C sensor, has it?
If the rumors of them cutting out Nikon from best in class sensors are true, they also have no choice but to move forward in resolutuion because Nikon won't be standing still at 36mp. Canon will also keep moving to. The current 50mp they are trying to push in the 5DRs is old tech even by Canon standard, but they can't admit that, so the 5DRs II will have to be at least 70mp and should be coming in 2018.
Sony has no choice really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, does that justify the important extra cost now and in anticipation of the availability of an a9r in less than 6 months?
I think the key thing is what Fuji does with the lens line. If there are more lenses like the 120/4, then the answer for many may be 'yes". I don't think I have a FF macro that can keep up with it even within the FF image circle. I thought the Sony 90/2.8 macro was pretty amazing before I tried the 120/4, but it's not even close. So what if the new 110 and the 23 (plus the 45 and 250) turn out to be in the same category as the 120/4? That will be hard to resist.
I'm assuming the focusing issues are going to be fixed.
But just for the body and FF lenses that you could use on the a7x, the answer is probably for most people (but not for all) "no". Even with the same (good) lenses, there appears to be around a 25% improvement in system resolution. But you have to print big in order to be able to use that.
Jim
-
I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.
Would you say that the Fuji is equally good at all focusing distances?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm torn to think if Sony will upend itself on the 50mp products. Why would Sony sell a 50mp 24x36 sensor when it makes a killing on the 50mp 33x44 sensor? If anything, I would expect the next gen 33x44 to launch & be active in all forms before 50mp comes to 24x36.
The 42mp 24x36 is a nice compromise, they're not lagging the 50mp Canon in any way other than dots, and they have a lot of other things they could put into a body that would draw more attention & sales.
I felt similarly for the longest time (until a few days ago). Why would Sony Corporate allow its Sony Sensor division to be cannibalized by its Sony Camera division producing higher res cameras than Sony Sensor supplies the market? Other camera manufacturers could easily be threatened by that, my old line of thinking went, and those other manufacturers would be incented to turn to other sensor manufacturers, damaging what actually is a huge Sony Sensor business.
But Lloyd Chambers pointed out a few days ago that this thinking is belied by Sony's sales numbers. Sony Camera is producing great products and pretty aggressively taking market share. Thinking about that fact, Sony's strategy now appears to me to be to allow other manufacturers to access Sony Sensor's new sensor technology pretty immediately as its developed. (There was a recent interview published where two Sony Sensor managers basically said as much.) Sony Camera sees new technology developed by Sony Sensor and fits that in its own products real time. Separately, it's obvious too that Sony Sensor will strategically partner with other camera manufacturers on new sensor designs (learning along the way), even if it does not implement those sensors itself (e.g. Phase One, Hasselblad, and others). Anyway, as Sony Camera's market share grows with this interesting synergistic approach, Sony gets the profits from that growth in both camera and embedded sensor sales.
So I'm now a believer in Sony Camera again (for the moment anyway). And I'm thinking about just hanging out with an A7RII until the A9R comes out, look at MF offerings then, maybe go into the A9R to bide more time until a compelling mirrorless MF platform has become established, most importantly with clearly compelling next generation lenses. We know those are the most costly and long lasting bits of any platform. The most interesting outcome in my new imaginary world might be a Sony/Zeiss medium format mirrorless entry. We can all dream.
-
I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.
Would you say that the Fuji is equally good at all focusing distances?
Cheers,
Bernard
I have owned four CV-125 APOs, three for Nikon mount and one for Pentax mount. I still have two. To me, the CV-125 is be the best all-around macro lens, but not the sharpest or best corrected. It does not hold up well against the Zeiss Otus series, IMO. Of course, the Otus series are not macro lenses, but some of them (Otus 55mm) will take the K-1 extension (5.8mm), which is the shortest extension I know of for the Nikon mount. I would expect the X1D and GFX macros to be better than the CV-125, but may lack the "style" and warmth of the Voigtlander. The CV-125 is, I believe, for the FF format, not for MF.
And I shot the CV-125 for many years and for a great number of images, hundreds of thousands. I revere it, but seldom use it. The future for me depends on the quality (acuity, correction, resolution, etc.) of lenses that the various companies produce.
-
I guess I am lucky to own a copy of the Vogtlander 125mm f2.5 APO. ;) although I have not tested the Fuji 120mm so it could be even better.
Haven't tested it up close yet. I'll let you know.
What's the first ratio you'd like me to try?
BTW, the CO 60/4 works great on the GFX:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/coastal-604-uv-vis-ir-on-fuji-gfx-50s/
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
Sorry for overstating! But, I think I have used your own words from another posting on another forum.
Thanks putting things in perspective.
Best regards
Erik
[Erik sent me a DPR post, in which in answer to a question from him, I did indeed pronounce my self "blown away" by the GFX.]
At this point, I would like to publicly apologize to Erik for doubting the accuracy of his recollections.
I would also like to apologize to the world for getting so carried away. It was during my honeymoon period with the GFX, when just about all I had found was wonderfulness.
Jim
-
Jim, from what I've seen, there are only a few people in the world who have given us as accurate a view of the GFX as you have. Thanks for that. Numbers/graphs notwithstanding of course.
It does seem to occupy a sweet spot in the market right now. Since we're truth telling, I loaded up my B&H shopping cart with GFX gear again last night, then deleted it. I already am having a difficult time waiting.
-
Jim, from what I've seen, there are only a few people in the world who have given us as accurate a view of the GFX as you have. Thanks for that. Numbers/graphs notwithstanding of course.
It does seem to occupy a sweet spot in the market right now. Since we're truth telling, I loaded up my B&H shopping cart with GFX gear again last night, then deleted it. I already am having a difficult time waiting.
Now ads for the GFX are going to appear wherever you go on the web. They're going to wear you down. :)
Jim
-
Aha! B&H that did that to me the previous time I set it up in my cart! GFX has been all over my browser (and Swiss watches too, maybe from eBay). It was actually a combo of your A7RII/GFX print blog, the fact that I'm not excited to run out and shoot with my Sony, Fuji's promise of a firmware update next month to correct focusing issues, and ultimately my impestuous nature. Right now, I really don't know what I actually am going to do given all that (and the ads!). Time to reset Safari to at least rule that out.
Adding to my quandary, sonyalpharumors.com just reported that an A9R might be released in June with (if you read Iki's comments) ~70mp. They have been the source of most A9 rumors for about 3 years, so buckets of salt are warranted.
-
Now ads for the GFX are going to appear wherever you go on the web. They're going to wear you down. :)
Jim
SFW porn :)
Edmund
-
For the same amount of pixels, what is the inherent advantage of bigger sensor size?
Do you see the advantage diminishing as sensor technology improve?
-
For the same amount of pixels, what is the inherent advantage of bigger sensor size?
Do you see the advantage diminishing as sensor technology improve?
Bigger full well capacity, roughly the same read noise, therefore greater dynamic range. Able to get more out of lenses that have the same resolution as measured in cycles/mm (but lens resolution tends to drop as image circle goes up).
We have already seen the advantage of large sensors diminish as smaller sensors become adequate for a given photographic task. I expect that that will continue.
Jim
-
Bigger full well capacity, roughly the same read noise, therefore greater dynamic range. Able to get more out of lenses that have the same resolution as measured in cycles/mm (but lens resolution tends to drop as image circle goes up).
We have already seen the advantage of large sensors diminish as smaller sensors become adequate for a given photographic task. I expect that that will continue.
Jim
Thank you Jim. Do you think the advance of sensor technology would come to a point where it would make bigger sensor obsolete? Or there will always be a sizeable, inherent advantage of large sensors that justifies its usage in the future?
-
Thank you Jim. Do you think the advance of sensor technology would come to a point where it would make bigger sensor obsolete? Or there will always be a sizeable, inherent advantage of large sensors that justifies its usage in the future?
I think it is not a question of absolute quality going to the larger sensor assuming the same technology, but a question of the market size of users willing to pay the freight for a given quality level. We have seen that new technology tends to get introduced for smaller sensors than those at the top of the camera market: CMOS, BSI, conversion gain changing, stacking are examples. That means that the very high end, because of the small market size and the difficulties of doing the fanciest tech at physically large sizes, has a disadvantage.
It may come to the point where the size of the market for 42 by 54 mm sensors gets to be so small that people stop making mass-produced products for that market. We'll have to wait and see.
Jim
-
For the same amount of pixels, what is the inherent advantage of bigger sensor size?
Do you see the advantage diminishing as sensor technology improve?
Listen to Jim Kasson more than me. I've not yet owned MF (but have owned top-end FF digital backs and good glass over the last ~20 years). From that and telescope investments, MF's advantage appears obvious. More light. Where would light sampling equipment be without that.
I imagine MF will be around the next 5 years because of that. But who knows. Competition and development in new cameras and new glass is clearly aimed at FF. That's where all the innovation is right now, especially sensors, autofocus, frame rates, shutters and ease of getting it all close to right. That's the sweet spot, economically. But so long as money and desire for more continue, that FF technology appears poised to creap into MF platforms.
BTW Jim, really leaning hard to GFX now (loaded up again). Would love to see the 120mm put through a 10 frame focus stack of anything processed in Zerene, Helicon, Photoshop or whatever, or at least hear your thoughts on that. Dunno if the focus by wire mechanism and its variability in manual focusing interferes with resolution/processing on that fine a scale -- tend to doubt it from what I've read so far. Neither M.E. nor anyone else I have found in my research has reported convincingly in what I've found. It's an important technique to many macro users, among others, that is disadvantaged by MF DoF. Just a thought.
-
For the same amount of pixels, what is the inherent advantage of bigger sensor size?
Typically better DR as mentioned; more flexibility in the choice of shutter speed, f-number and DOF in a given situation; and - in practice - often better resolution due to the lower magnification required to produce a displayed photograph, which is more tolerant of imperfections such as camera shake. It is the latter, often combined with more pixels and custom profiles, which imho produces what many call the MF 'look' or MF 'colors'.
Jack
-
Typically better DR as mentioned; more flexibility in the choice of shutter speed, f-number and DOF in a given situation; and - in practice - often better resolution due to the lower magnification required to produce a displayed photograph, which is more tolerant of imperfections such as camera shake. It is the latter, often combined with more pixels and custom profiles, which imho produces what many call the MF 'look' or MF 'colors'.
Yes, I share Jack's opinion on the differences. The longer focal length used for the same Field-of-View with MF also means larger feature size in the image that's projected on the sensor. That larger magnification factor can also translate to higher MTF, which has a (sometimes) subtle effect on how image detail is rendered from the start. That also provides a more robust starting point for post-processing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I always thought of it as the old drawing analogy...as basic as it is...
Try drawing a portrait on a postage stamp. Then trying drawing the exact same portrait on a postcard. And then on a large sheet of paper. And then a large canvas.
Which one can you get finer detail into? It's easier to show it the larger you go. This definitely applied with film. to my experience, though not as pronounced, definitely holds with digital. Megapixels helped reduce this a bit...but there is still a difference between 36mm and 54mm.
Color, dynamic range, etc....sure they might be similar or better on the latest 35... but there is a fine detail difference. It is what it is...but do those difference matter at the end of the day? Depends on what you end goal is.
-
I always thought of it as the old drawing analogy...as basic as it is...
Try drawing a portrait on a postage stamp. Then trying drawing the exact same portrait on a postcard. And then on a large sheet of paper. And then a large canvas.
Which one can you get finer detail into? It's easier to show it the larger you go. This definitely applied with film. to my experience, though not as pronounced, definitely holds with digital. Megapixels helped reduce this a bit...but there is still a difference between 36mm and 54mm.
Color, dynamic range, etc....sure they might be similar or better on the latest 35... but there is a fine detail difference. It is what it is...but do those difference matter at the end of the day? Depends on what you end goal is.
I believe that a lot of that is due to the lenses. Most 35mm lenses are very ambitious designs with wide aperture and that ends up impacting their peak performance stopped down. When you use the very best 35mm lenses (Otus, 200mm f2.0,...) you realize that most lenses are just average. This is especially true in wide lenses where the only outstanding one IMHO is the Onus 28mm f1.4.
But yes, all that taken into account, I still see crispier pixels with my H6D-100c compared to the D810 + Otus.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/705/33144756541_11ce282237_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
BTW Jim, really leaning hard to GFX now (loaded up again). Would love to see the 120mm put through a 10 frame focus stack of anything processed in Zerene, Helicon, Photoshop or whatever, or at least hear your thoughts on that. Dunno if the focus by wire mechanism and its variability in manual focusing interferes with resolution/processing on that fine a scale -- tend to doubt it from what I've read so far. Neither M.E. nor anyone else I have found in my research has reported convincingly in what I've found. It's an important technique to many macro users, among others, that is disadvantaged by MF DoF. Just a thought.
The answer is that you can focus stack with the Fuji 120/4 on a rail just fine, as illustrated by this test I did yesterday at 1:2:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fuji-1204-macro-at-12-on-gfx-loca-and-focus-shift/
Jim
-
The answer is that you can focus stack with the Fuji 120/4 on a rail just fine, as illustrated by this test I did yesterday at 1:2:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fuji-1204-macro-at-12-on-gfx-loca-and-focus-shift/
Jim
Focus stacking on a rail is, according to Rik Littlefield (designer of Zerene Stacker) the least friendly to stacking software way to capture stacks. A real question I have had when moving to fly-by-wire systems such as the Hasselblad X1D or the Fuji GFX, both systems which I purchased, is what’s with fly-by-wire focus as relates to stacking-focus? All of the lenses, for example, that are native to the Hasselblad X1D use fly-by-wire technology for focus. The standard reasons for moving to fly-by-wire are that it is less expensive, makes it easier to implement auto-focus, and (supposedly) less and less photographers are bothering with manual focus.
Whatever the reasons, I wanted to know what effect (if any) does fly-by-wire technology have on stacking focus? It worried me because not only have I never used fly-by-wire focusing, but I don’t even use auto-focus... much. So what gives?
Fly-by-focus drives some folks crazy because on lenses that use it, they are no distance scales, etc. listed. And the reason for that is because with fly-by-wire there is no direct mechanical linkage between turning the barrel and a certain distance. While fly-by-wire systems may differ, it is possible to turn off the camera with a particular point in focus, turn it back on, and the focus point may have jumped to some other area of the subject. Again: there is no mechanical linkage as we have in traditional lenses.
Also, long focus throws don’t seem to exist in the fly-by-wire focus systems I have tried, although, of course, you can get a particular point in focus. For those of us into close-up macro focus-stacking, having a decent-to-long focus throw is a distinct advantage. For example, one of the best corrected lenses, the Coastal Optics 60mm APO f/4 lens has a focus throw of around 210-degrees, while the Leica 100mm Elmarit-R f/2.8 APO lens has a focus throw of more like 720-degrees. The net result is that the Coastal Optics lenses really has to be placed on a focus rail to get the kind of gradual focusing that is often required. Not a good design IMO.
With the proper EVF or LiveView screen and magnification, it is possible to focus accurately using one of these fly-by-wire-focus lenses. We all know it is easy to focus a one-shot photo, and I have determined that shooting a “short stack” imaged by focus-stacking also works well enough. But what about the more-standard focus-stacking method of 15-100 layers? How does the fly-by-wire stack up (pun intended) to the more traditional mechanical helicoid method of stacking focus.
To check this, I photographed two stacks of around 20 layers, one using the fly-by-wire and single-stepping it (like we usually do) and a second stack of the same fly-by-wire lens mounted on a focus rail and moved mechanically. I used the Hasselblad X1D with the 90mm f/3.5 lens.
The results showed that both methods produced a usable stack.
-
Focus stacking on a rail is, according to Rik Littlefield (designer of Zerene Stacker) the least friendly to stacking software way to capture stacks. A real question I have had when moving to fly-by-wire systems such as the Hasselblad X1D or the Fuji GFX, both systems which I purchased, is what’s with fly-by-wire focus as relates to stacking-focus? All of the lenses, for example, that are native to the Hasselblad X1D use fly-by-wire technology for focus. The standard reasons for moving to fly-by-wire are that it is less expensive, makes it easier to implement auto-focus, and (supposedly) less and less photographers are bothering with manual focus.
Whatever the reasons, I wanted to know what effect (if any) does fly-by-wire technology have on stacking focus? It worried me because not only have I never used fly-by-wire focusing, but I don’t even use auto-focus... much. So what gives?
Fly-by-focus drives some folks crazy because on lenses that use it, they are no distance scales, etc. listed. And the reason for that is because with fly-by-wire there is no direct mechanical linkage between turning the barrel and a certain distance. While fly-by-wire systems may differ, it is possible to turn off the camera with a particular point in focus, turn it back on, and the focus point may have jumped to some other area of the subject. Again: there is no mechanical linkage as we have in traditional lenses.
Also, long focus throws don’t seem to exist in the fly-by-wire focus systems I have tried, although, of course, you can get a particular point in focus. For those of us into close-up macro focus-stacking, having a decent-to-long focus throw is a distinct advantage. For example, one of the best corrected lenses, the Coastal Optics 60mm APO f/4 lens has a focus throw of around 210-degrees, while the Leica 100mm Elmarit-R f/2.8 APO lens has a focus throw of more like 720-degrees. The net result is that the Coastal Optics lenses really has to be placed on a focus rail to get the kind of gradual focusing that is often required. Not a good design IMO.
With the proper EVF or LiveView screen and magnification, it is possible to focus accurately using one of these fly-by-wire-focus lenses. We all know it is easy to focus a one-shot photo, and I have determined that shooting a “short stack” imaged by focus-stacking also works well enough. But what about the more-standard focus-stacking method of 15-100 layers? How does the fly-by-wire stack up (pun intended) to the more traditional mechanical helicoid method of stacking focus.
To check this, I photographed two stacks of around 20 layers, one using the fly-by-wire and single-stepping it (like we usually do) and a second stack of the same fly-by-wire lens mounted on a focus rail and moved mechanically. I used the Hasselblad X1D with the 90mm f/3.5 lens.
The results showed that both methods produced a usable stack.
Thanks for that. I have never tried to stack with lens adjustment with a focus-by-wire lens. I had no idea it was possible. How do you know how much you've changed the focus distance for each step?
Jim
-
Thanks for that. I have never tried to stack with lens adjustment with a focus-by-wire lens. I had no idea it was possible. How do you know how much you've changed the focus distance for each step?
Jim
In my case, I had to stop, magnify, and look, but I have a general idea that I could just stack away and get something usable. Time will tell. It is with the release of the 120mm Macro XCD that this will be most important for my work. If not, I will probably just sell the system. For myself, I like long-focus throw highly corrected, sharp-wide-open, fast lenses like the Otus series. So, I'm looking for Nikon or Sony to offer something... sometime....soon.
-
For myself, I like long-focus throw highly corrected, sharp-wide-open, fast lenses like the Otus series.
Add macro to that list, and do you end up with the null set?
BTW, the CO 60/4 covers the 33x44 format very well, even at infinity. You need to stop down a stop or so at infinity to get the corners even. But it's not all that sharp, and it's not fast, and it's certainly not long-throw.
Jim
-
OP
What do you mainly photograph? I maybe missed it.
Do you print? What size printer do you have or intend to get? I often take those things into consideration for my MF system.
I had a PO P45+ an used it with a Hasselblad V for landscape. Then I got a Pentax 645Z. I liked the IQ improvement, but something was missing. Then I got the XF +100MP and I am loving the image quality all while I feel I might be future proofed for some time based on my printing needs-24" for the time being. I just have to hold in the GAS. We will be inundated with temptations for upgrading from now on until we leave this earth.
IMHO, if you want to future proof yourself then go for a 100MP sensor. To my friends, they can see the improvement in the 100MP files even with jpeg images sent to them for 24-30" monitor viewing.
If you do street, then get a 24MP whatever and stick with it until its buffer is too slow for you.
-
OP
What do you mainly photograph? I maybe missed it.
I do close-up nature, landscapes... still photography. Here are some links:
http://spiritgrooves.net/e-Books.aspx#Photography
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5xDr8mWUwrzi4bxY978O1DQykUrj-S2I
-
OP
What do you mainly photograph? I maybe missed it.
Do you print? What size printer do you have or intend to get? I often take those things into consideration for my MF system.
I had a PO P45+ an used it with a Hasselblad V for landscape. Then I got a Pentax 645Z. I liked the IQ improvement, but something was missing. Then I got the XF +100MP and I am loving the image quality all while I feel I might be future proofed for some time based on my printing needs-24" for the time being. I just have to hold in the GAS. We will be inundated with temptations for upgrading from now on until we leave this earth.
IMHO, if you want to future proof yourself then go for a 100MP sensor. To my friends, they can see the improvement in the 100MP files even with jpeg images sent to them for 24-30" monitor viewing.
If you do street, then get a 24MP whatever and stick with it until its buffer is too slow for you.
Yeah you got it. Temptations forevermore. And good question, at least for me and maybe a few others here. I have an HPZ3200 44 inch printer and shoot a wide range of generally still subjects, typically shooting to print to that scale. That can be done using meticulously taken and processed (and enlarged) FF shots satisfactorily, but I've grown weary of all the time I spend in post manually dealing with imperfections (like movement between stitched frames, for just one example). So I lust for 100MP and/or higher quality pixel level detail.
What's holding me up from a Phase XF-100MP is its practically prohibitive cost AND that I hike my stuff around a bit. The X1D and GFX platforms are more affordable and portable in my case. Given Sony's MF sensor roadmap, I can imagine high quality 100MP backs for those two systems will come in a few years, and that's where I'm leaning today.
-
Thanks for that. I have never tried to stack with lens adjustment with a focus-by-wire lens. I had no idea it was possible. How do you know how much you've changed the focus distance for each step?
Jim
The GFX can give you a depth-of-field scale on the LCD. I haven't tried it with a macro shot, but I have used it for a simple 3-image focus stack in a near/far composition. No idea how accurate it is yet as I haven't really tried to test it, but perhaps someone has. The GFX actually has 2 different depth-of-field scales it can display, I believe, one for if you are going to print (that's a little more forgiving) and one for pixel sharpness. I've only used the print version as it gives greater depth readings and I shoot for print.
-
To check this, I photographed two stacks of around 20 layers, one using the fly-by-wire and single-stepping it (like we usually do) and a second stack of the same fly-by-wire lens mounted on a focus rail and moved mechanically. I used the Hasselblad X1D with the 90mm f/3.5 lens.
The results showed that both methods produced a usable stack.
Michael, when you had the GFX in hand, were you able to manually do 20 layers too? I don't stack by rail for the reasons you cite, and also because some of my subjects would require a 20' long rail.
-
Michael, when you had the GFX in hand, were you able to manually do 20 layers too? I don't stack by rail for the reasons you cite, and also because some of my subjects would require a 20' long rail.
I would imagine that fly-by-wire focus is the same. When I was testing the GFX, I had other fish to fry, the main problem being the lenses I like the most (Otus, etc.) looked (IMO) worse than on the Nikoin D810 and that was not acceptable for my work. With the X1D I don't have that problem because it does not accept non-native lenses! LOL
-
I would imagine that fly-by-wire focus is the same. When I was testing the GFX, I had other fish to fry, the main problem being the lenses I like the most (Otus, etc.) looked (IMO) worse than on the Nikoin D810 and that was not acceptable for my work. With the X1D I don't have that problem because it does not accept non-native lenses! LOL
Thanks. LOL too. Maybe one solution is an adaptor and a manual mechanically focused macro lens for this type of work with the GFX. BTW you probably already know and have rejected this for hundreds of good reasons I don't know, but Kuyper's luminosity curves allows me to stretch out blacks and whites just about to my hearts content.
-
The GFX can give you a depth-of-field scale on the LCD. I haven't tried it with a macro shot, but I have used it for a simple 3-image focus stack in a near/far composition. No idea how accurate it is yet as I haven't really tried to test it, but perhaps someone has. The GFX actually has 2 different depth-of-field scales it can display, I believe, one for if you are going to print (that's a little more forgiving) and one for pixel sharpness. I've only used the print version as it gives greater depth readings and I shoot for print.
With the 120/4 macro up close, you can make big focusing moves and see no change on the LCD/EVF scale.
-
With the 120/4 macro up close, you can make big focusing moves and see no change on the LCD/EVF scale.
I imagine so, given the scale that's displayed and the distances you are changing focus over in a macro situation. I imagine this is something that could be resolved in a firmware update (to change the scale displayed when focusing at macro distances). I don't think the depth of field bars will ever be much help at macro scale, but seeing the focus point move could be beneficial.
-
In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.
Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.
-
In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.
Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.
I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?
I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?
I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, that "showstopper" leaves me with no high-Mpx camera to use the various well-corrected lenses I have. I am using the X1D just to learn more about MF cameras, but I may sell it (down the line) since it won't allow me to use alternative lenses at all. What I need is Nikon to come through with a new camera with all the good things I could use. In the meantime, I will probably do more technical camera work. As for Sony, I am mixed. A high-MPx camera from them could be interesting, but I am not charmed with their approach to DSLRs, although I have the A7Rii, etc.
-
Hi,
Jim Kasson is positive about Otus and Zeiss classic lenses on the GFX. So, there seems to be some contradiction.
Best regards
Erik
I believe that the Otus may be designed with some assumptions in terms of the charactetistics of the sensors in front of which they are used (glass thickness, type of micro-lenses,...) and that these may differ between the 35mm Nikon DSLRs vs the shorter flange distance GFX?
I'd have to agree that this is probably a show stopper.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.
Interestingly enough, Chambers found that the Zeiss 135mm APO (an Otus as far as I am concerned) does work on the GFX. So, go figure.
I'm not surprised. It's a phenomenon we saw with the first A7 cams. Rule of thumb: 50mm (35'ish wide angle, when adapted) - marginal. Telephoto, 75mm and up - works. Wide-angles, with a few exceptions - don't bother.
-
Hi,
That was for Leica M lenses and similar, that have large beam angles. It would not apply to retrofocus lenses, like Leica R-lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not surprised. It's a phenomenon we saw with the first A7 cams. Rule of thumb: 50mm (35'ish wide angle, when adapted) - marginal. Telephoto, 75mm and up - works. Wide-angles, with a few exceptions - don't bother.
-
The GFX is so good with lenses it does work with, there should be no issue, unless you are an avid collector of non native glass.
I mean, how many lenses do you actually regularly use or need?
-
In his most recent posts, Lloyd Chambers is finding the same thing I found as for using high-quality non-native lenses on the GFX, particularly the Otus 55mm APO and the Otus 28mm APO. For some reason, they just don’t work well on the GFX, which is why I bought the GFX and that failure is why I returned it.
I'm not finding that at all. For example, the improvement in sharpness that comes from using the Otus 85 on the GFX as opposed to the a7RII is quite high:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a7rii-gfx-on-axis-sharpness-w-otus-85/
I am not an optics expert, but when the GFX was first announced, I did consult with two, who said that the thickness of the sensor cover glass was the key thing for smearing; and that the exact location, while not completely immaterial, was a second-order effect. I will point out that I never saw corner smearing on the a7RII with lenses designed for mirror-box cameras, since the wide ones can't be symmetrical.
With respect to focusing, which, if you're not using rails, plays into testing for this, I can say that I have no trouble focusing the GFX except with top-notch lenses on high-contrast targets. The trick is to use peaking and magnification together. I was testing the Zeiss 35 mm f/2 ZF.2 on the GFX last night, and -- maybe the stars and moon aligned -- I have to say that I've never seen the focus point pop into view like that on any other camera except the Betterlight Super 6K with its target in focusing mode. Foliage at 50 meters, and form f/2 to f/4, the slightest movement of the focusing ring off the "lit up" distance produced a huge effect.
Jim
-
I no longer have the GFX, so I can't experiment. I did experiment enough to determine that these lenses did not surpass (or equal) what I can do with the D810. Some may find something different.
As far as who asked how many lenses a person needs, there is no answer to that. That is an individual thing. I happen to like lenses.
-
The GFX is so good with lenses it does work with, there should be no issue, unless you are an avid collector of non native glass.
I mean, how many lenses do you actually regularly use or need?
rough question on these forums! ;)
-
I no longer have the GFX, so I can't experiment. I did experiment enough to determine that these lenses did not surpass (or equal) what I can do with the D810. Some may find something different.
I should be clear here about the GFX sharpness improvements with the Otus vs the a7RII. While the numbers are strikingly different, and highly magnified screen views almost (but not quite) as compelling, I found that I had to make really big prints to see a material difference in the output. C-size was too small to see anything material.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/
Even with 30-inch high prints, the differences were subtle, and likely to be invisible to the average viewer.
That's because the Otus lenses can resolve so much detail that the sensors on either camera cannot. With lesser lenses the greater size of the GFX sensor is an advantage, but many of us don't buy cameras like the GFX to use then with cheap lenses.
There's something to think about here. Now that we have cameras like the D810, the a7RII, the GFX, and the P1 100 MP camera, photographic technique -- DOF, camera motion, diffraction control, focus accuracy, etc -- becomes the likely limiting factor in image quality, not the gear.
Jim
-
I should be clear here about the GFX sharpness improvements with the Otus vs the a7RII. While the numbers are strikingly different, and highly magnified screen views almost (but not quite) as compelling, I found that I had to make really big prints to see a material difference in the output. C-size was too small to see anything material.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/
Even with 30-inch high prints, the differences were subtle, and likely to be invisible to the average viewer.
That's because the Otus lenses can resolve so much detail that the sensors on either camera cannot. With lesser lenses the greater size of the GFX sensor is an advantage, but many of us don't buy cameras like the GFX to use then with cheap lenses.
There's something to think about here. Now that we have cameras like the D810, the a7RII, the GFX, and the P1 100 MP camera, photographic technique -- DOF, camera motion, diffraction control, focus accuracy, etc -- becomes the likely limiting factor in image quality, not the gear.
Jim
Well, I have yet to print out a single photo and I have none on the walls. Zero.
One thing I am learning on these photo forums is what a wide variety of photographers we are. A professional photographer I never thought to be, because that seemed like a long row to hoe. I have been more interested in process than the resulting photos. And by “process” I mean the state of mind when taking photos, and how that works. Few seem interested in that.
I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.
-
Well, I have yet to print out a single photo and I have none on the walls. Zero.
One thing I am learning on these photo forums is what a wide variety of photographers we are. A professional photographer I never thought to be, because that seemed like a long row to hoe. I have been more interested in process than the resulting photos. And by “process” I mean the state of mind when taking photos, and how that works. Few seem interested in that.
I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.
Chacun a son gout. I find it rewarding to have my photographs in galleries and on other people walls. I also found that having exhibition catalogs published was satisfying. I even went as far as publishing a short run (1000 copies) book of the Staccato work.
I think of photography as a communications medium.
At the same time, I appreciate that the process itself can be a pleasure. I used to particularly like teh zen-like state I would get into when doing street photography.
Jim
-
I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.
I wouldn't call it a camera club, but my association with this group has been of great benefit:
http://www.imagemakers.gallery/
Also this one:
http://photography.org/
Jim
-
One thing I am learning on these photo forums is what a wide variety of photographers we are . . .. I have been more interested in process than the resulting photos. And by “process” I mean the state of mind when taking photos, and how that works. Few seem interested in that.
I tried a camera club, once or twice, but soon found that there was nothing there that interested me and what I did was of little interest to them. Forums like these are better, on a good day.
Bernard L probably should improve upon my memory, but this reminds me of a zen philosophical strand teaching that in life we have many pursuits. If we are mindful as we pursue, each can teach us little bits about the nature of perfection itself.
Anyway, I wish I had paid more attention all along, digress and apologize for straying from the topic (before a bad day begins on this post).
-
Chacun a son gout. I find it rewarding to have my photographs in galleries and on other people walls. I also found that having exhibition catalogs published was satisfying. I even went as far as publishing a short run (1000 copies) book of the Staccato work.
I think of photography as a communications medium.
At the same time, I appreciate that the process itself can be a pleasure. I used to particularly like teh zen-like state I would get into when doing street photography.
Jim
Hi,
The way I see it, the only reason to use advanced equipment is to print large. My first digital camera was a Canon Ixus and it had 2MP. Nearly enough to fill a full HD screen. Going to 4K, we can make use of eight megapixels.
Obviously, there is more to images than megapixels. Just as an example, although cell phones can have high resolutions they don't have a wide selection of focal lengths.
But, the only reason to go for high image quality is printing large.
Yes, we can pixel peep all we want. But, real images are not intended for pixel peeping. I would say that 12 MP is good enough for a remarkably good 16"x23" print. If you don't print larger, a 12 to 16 MP 4/3 sensor would be quiet good enough. Printing twice the linear size, 32"x46" would make good use of around 50 MP.
My next major investment may be a 4K projector. Projecting a 4K image 1.7m wide would make good use of a 10 MP image, when viewed at 1.5m distance.
Best regards
Erik
-
I find it rewarding to have my photographs in galleries and on other people walls. I also found that having exhibition catalogs published was satisfying. I even went as far as publishing a short run (1000 copies) book of the Staccato work.
I think of photography as a communications medium.
Facebook has a way of reminding you of what you posted on this day in 20xx, and a few minutes ago they fed back to me a post I made five years ago, with yet another reason for getting your photography out in the world:
I made a presentation to one of Kevin Bransfield’s MPC photography classes on Monday. Yesterday, Kevin sent me this email:
“My students (and myself included) thoroughly enjoyed your presentation on Monday. Thank you so much for coming in. We played around with using curves to solarize after you left and talked about the joys of using cameras in ways they weren't made to be used. The class was out photographing with neutral density filters this afternoon and we spontaneously started talking about how your Staccato series transforms the world into a new way of seeing the world that has a lot of emotion in it. Thanks again and I look forward to seeing you.”
Kevin, you and your students couldn’t have enjoyed it any more than I did. It was a rewarding afternoon, and getting an email like this makes the feeling last.
Fellow photographers, if Kevin asks you to help him out, do it; you’ll be glad.
Jim
-
Having fallen into a research rabbit hole for a few weeks and forgetting a basic photoshop shortcut last night, I just laid plans to demo an X1D in a few weeks. I'll post my impressions somewhere then. It will not be as convincing or useful as Mr. Kasson's numbers/graphs, but there should be some images of Hawaii at least. And an attempt at a 20+ frame focus stack for sure.
I did remember the other part of the koan in the meantime: As a person mindfully focuses on perfecting one pursuit after another, s/he learns more and more about the nature of perfection itself and, in time, may glimpse into their own true nature.
That's what they said anyway. Too late with my photography, hopefully not others.
-
Do you think the advance of sensor technology would come to a point where it would make bigger sensor obsolete?
I do not pretend to Jim's expertise, but one likely long-term limit I see is lenses — we might not be so very far from sensors being able to squeeze every useful bit of information out of the light delivered to the focal plane by the lens. For example, the pixel sizes in some small sensors are down to about twice the wavelength of light, so that fundamental limit on sensor resolution is "in sight", so to speak. But I doubt that lens for formats like 36x24mm will even resolve as finely as that. In fact one limit is aperture ratios and thus diffraction; I believe that there is a fundamental optical limit to about f/0.7 (cue comments about the so-called "Kubrick lenses", really "NASA moonshot lenses": some f/0.7 lenses originally produced by Zeiss for the moon landing program). And more likely, good corner-to-corner image quality at high resolution will always limit aperture ratios to something distinctly higher, maybe f/2, and thus with diffraction spot size about 2 microns across, so I doubt that formats 36x24mm or larger will ever resolve well (with high MTF and so with good local contrast) below about 2 microns. If so, 36x24 is resolution limited to a mere 18000x12000 pixels or about 200MP! (Even if more, smaller pixels are used for "oversampling" to sustain fancy post-processing.)
Coming down to earth, lens limits like aberrations and diffraction will probably set distinctly lower limits on the usable resolution in various formats, and I doubt that 36x24 will ever completely match what 54x40mm can do in some demanding situations.
-
Hi,
We may have some answers next year, or so, when we may have 70+ MP on 24x36, 100 MP on 44x33 and 150 MP on 54x40.
We have a lot of very good lenses for 24x36 mm now, think Otus and Sigma Art, with Batis not far behind. Canon is busy redesigning it's lenses.
Fuji says that the GFX lenses are calculated for 100 MP and I guess that also applies to the Hasselad X1D.
So, I guess we are going to see some pressure from the smaller formats versus the larger formats.
To that comes usability. You can have 150 MP, but it may not help if you cannot achieve critical focus, no vibration or need to stop down into diffraction limited region.
Best regards
Erik
I do not pretend to Jim's expertise, but one likely long-term limit I see is lenses — we might not be so very far from sensors being able to squeeze every useful bit of information out of the light delivered to the focal plane by the lens. For example, the pixel sizes in some small sensors are down to about twice the wavelength of light, so that fundamental limit on sensor resolution is "in sight", so to speak. But I doubt that lens for formats like 36x24mm will even resolve as finely as that. In fact one limit is aperture ratios and thus diffraction; I believe that there is a fundamental optical limit to about f/0.7 (cue comments about the so-called "Kubrick lenses", really "NASA moonshot lenses": some f/0.7 lenses originally produced by Zeiss for the moon landing program). And more likely, good corner-to-corner image quality at high resolution will always limit aperture ratios to something distinctly higher, maybe f/2, and thus with diffraction spot size about 2 microns across, so I doubt that formats 36x24mm or larger will ever resolve well (with high MTF and so with good local contrast) below about 2 microns. If so, 36x24 is resolution limited to a mere 18000x12000 pixels or about 200MP! (Even if more, smaller pixels are used for "oversampling" to sustain fancy post-processing.)
Coming down to earth, lens limits like aberrations and diffraction will probably set distinctly lower limits on the usable resolution in various formats, and I doubt that 36x24 will ever completely match what 54x40mm can do in some demanding situations.
-
Quote from Erik on 4/28
We may have some answers next year, or so, when we may have 70+ MP on 24x36
Really, so you don't believe the chatter about Sony coming out with something in that range this summer.
-
But, the only reason to go for high image quality is printing large.
Yes, we can pixel peep all we want. But, real images are not intended for pixel peeping. I would say that 12 MP is good enough for a remarkably good 16"x23" print. If you don't print larger, a 12 to 16 MP 4/3 sensor would be quiet good enough.
Best regards
Erik
Oh, I wish I could agree. It may depend what you shoot, but for the detail I'm working for, no way 12mp works for a 16 x 23. They just fall apart.
On another note, there are advantages to excess resolution - you can crop liberally if necessary, and get by with a single lens more than not.
-
Hi,
Sony has published a roadmap for MFD-sensors and it says 2018. There has been some info about a 70+ MP sensor from Sony in 24x36, but it has not been confirmed, so we need to wait and see.
So, it is not before next year we can see the full landscape.
Best regards
Erik
Quote from Erik on 4/28
Really, so you don't believe the chatter about Sony coming out with something in that range this summer.
-
Sony has published a roadmap for MFD-sensors and it says 2018. There has been some info about a 70+ MP sensor from Sony in 24x36, but it has not been confirmed, so we need to wait and see.
So, it is not before next year we can see the full landscape.
I would estimate the odds of Sony not coming up in 2017 with an a9r featuring a sensor with at least 60mp to be around 2.37%.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Jim Kasson has looked into comparing the GFX with the A7rII. In his data the GFX had some significant advantage in resolution bot using Fujinon lenses and when comparing the same Otus lens on both.
At present, MFD does not have on sensor PDAF and that limits autofocus capabilities. CDAF can be very accurate, but it is slow and it also needs lenses with fast AF-movements.
Sony says 100MP 44x33 and 150MP 54x40 sensors arrive next year and I would expect that those sensors have PDAF. So, I would expect some new cameras from Hasselblad and Fuji, with 100MP and on sensor PDAF.
There has been a lot of talk about a 70+ MP Sony sensor for a long time and my guess would be that it will show up before long. But, I am not sure about Sony's lenses keeping up. Yes, we can use Sony cameras with Canon mount and other lenses, using adapters. But, I don't think adapters are a professional solution.
On the other hand, I am not sure professionals are in the search of the ultimate lens. Professionals are probably most interested in gear that is needed to get the job done.
Jim also looked into prints and have essentially found that Sony A7rII and GFX were very close at 15" print height. Going to 30" there was some real advantage to the GFX based on close inspection.
Both the GFX and the X1D are affordable in MFD terms, they cost like twice the leading high resolutions 24x36 mm systems (A7rII, 5DsR and Nikon D810). Comparing cameras like the D5 and the D1XII to MFD makes little sense to me.
The GFX system has great prospect for the future, but I guess they need to iron out a few issues.
Best regards
Erik
-
I do not pretend to Jim's expertise, but one likely long-term limit I see is lenses — we might not be so very far from sensors being able to squeeze every useful bit of information out of the light delivered to the focal plane by the lens. For example, the pixel sizes in some small sensors are down to about twice the wavelength of light, so that fundamental limit on sensor resolution is "in sight", so to speak. But I doubt that lens for formats like 36x24mm will even resolve as finely as that. In fact one limit is aperture ratios and thus diffraction; I believe that there is a fundamental optical limit to about f/0.7 (cue comments about the so-called "Kubrick lenses", really "NASA moonshot lenses": some f/0.7 lenses originally produced by Zeiss for the moon landing program). And more likely, good corner-to-corner image quality at high resolution will always limit aperture ratios to something distinctly higher, maybe f/2, and thus with diffraction spot size about 2 microns across, so I doubt that formats 36x24mm or larger will ever resolve well (with high MTF and so with good local contrast) below about 2 microns. If so, 36x24 is resolution limited to a mere 18000x12000 pixels or about 200MP! (Even if more, smaller pixels are used for "oversampling" to sustain fancy post-processing.)
Coming down to earth, lens limits like aberrations and diffraction will probably set distinctly lower limits on the usable resolution in various formats, and I doubt that 36x24 will ever completely match what 54x40mm can do in some demanding situations.
There is no theoretical limit on the resolution of lenses, except diffraction. Diffraction, however, should not be under-estimated, as we also need some depth of field unless shooting perfectly flat subjects. In normal photographic practice, the compromises between diffraction and depth of field are real, as anybody who tried to use a 8"x10" view camera would find out. This compromise also becomes apparent when stitching is used to increase resolution: only landscapes at far distance are routinely imaged.
There is no theoretical limit, but there are practical ones. Optics have made progresses, but not as fast as electronics. In practice, lenses are compromises on aberrations, price and size/weight. The optical engineer can build very good lenses for high-definition MF sensors, but they will be huge and heavy. When they are not, other tricks are used like software corrections of distortion or chromatic aberrations to relax the constraints a bit.
So what gives? At present, the maximum resolution available in a single lens frame is 200 mpix (by moving the sensor around). Presently available MF lenses cope, when stopped down a bit. An educated guess is that this would also be around the practical limit, give or take some.
Another important fact is that seemingly large increases in number of pixels correspond to relatively moderate increase in practical detail level. A good rule of thumb is that, to get a noticeable effect, one needs to double the resolution. This is very noticeable for 24x36 cameras where the manufacturers present resolution increase between, say, 36 and 42 mpix as significant while they are not unless peeping pixels. Today, the maximum resolution for 24x36 cameras is 50 mpix. An increase to, say, 70 mpix is not likely to break the lenses.
-
Hi,
Increasing sensor resolution will improve any lens. The MTF of the system is MTF of the lens times the MTF of the sensor. So as long as the MTF of the lens is above zero it will gain image quality when paired with a better sensor.
Best regards
Erik
There is no theoretical limit on the resolution of lenses, except diffraction. Diffraction, however, should not be under-estimated, as we also need some depth of field unless shooting perfectly flat subjects. In normal photographic practice, the compromises between diffraction and depth of field are real, as anybody who tried to use a 8"x10" view camera would find out. This compromise also becomes apparent when stitching is used to increase resolution: only landscapes at far distance are routinely imaged.
There is no theoretical limit, but there are practical ones. Optics have made progresses, but not as fast as electronics. In practice, lenses are compromises on aberrations, price and size/weight. The optical engineer can build very good lenses for high-definition MF sensors, but they will be huge and heavy. When they are not, other tricks are used like software corrections of distortion or chromatic aberrations to relax the constraints a bit.
So what gives? At present, the maximum resolution available in a single lens frame is 200 mpix (by moving the sensor around). Presently available MF lenses cope, when stopped down a bit. An educated guess is that this would also be around the practical limit, give or take some.
Another important fact is that seemingly large increases in number of pixels correspond to relatively moderate increase in practical detail level. A good rule of thumb is that, to get a noticeable effect, one needs to double the resolution. This is very noticeable for 24x36 cameras where the manufacturers present resolution increase between, say, 36 and 42 mpix as significant while they are not unless peeping pixels. Today, the maximum resolution for 24x36 cameras is 50 mpix. An increase to, say, 70 mpix is not likely to break the lenses.
-
Hi,
My judgement here is based on some experience and some reading.
- I switched from 12MP APS-C to 24MP on full frame in 2008, at that time there was a lot of difference in files but not so much in print.
- It is often stated that around 180 PPI are needed for excellent prints, that happens to be 12 MP, pretty exactly.
- Above statement applies to 20/20 vision at 50 cm viewing distance
- A very demonstrative experiment is to downscale a high res image to 12 MP and than upsize to original resolution. Print both images at A2 size and check the differences. have you done that? I have…
- In an interview with Michael Reichmann here on Lula, Ctein's who is known as possibly the worlds best printing artist claims that 16 MP is good enough for A2 and can match anything he has shot on 67 film. It may be taken out of context, but it is still an interesting statement.
- Personally, I graduated from 12 MP APS-C to 24 MP full frame and from that to 39 MP on a 37x49 mm back. Right now I am shooting 42 MP on 24x36 mm.
Choices are not always that simple. I was shooting a late evening with my 24 MP Sony Alpha 900. It was windy and I was concerned about wind induced blur in trees.
So I also shot with my 16 MP APS-C camera, a Sony A55 SLT. The A55 allowed me to use a better lens. Live view focus made that I could focus more accurately and the A55 had a new sensor with better high ISO capability. In the end, the 16 MP APS-C image made it to the wall, in A2-size. I printed both images in A2 but it was the 16 MP print that made it to the wall. It was a very close call, though.
When I got the A7rII that resolves 42 MP the Hasselblad V/P45+ kit went into wardrobe state. I was shooting like 4000 frames a year with the P45+, but after the A7rII arrived it is more like 200-400 frames a year. Nice to shoot with classic gear, but zero benefits compared to the new…
Best regards
Erik
Oh, I wish I could agree. It may depend what you shoot, but for the detail I'm working for, no way 12mp works for a 16 x 23. They just fall apart.
On another note, there are advantages to excess resolution - you can crop liberally if necessary, and get by with a single lens more than not.
-
- Above statement applies to 20/20 vision at 50 cm viewing distance
Yes, your research is quite good. The difference is the criteria.
-
I believe the advantage/characteristic of MF is rather defined by its sensor size than by MPs. When shooting FF, I do not pick up a camera with highest MPs, but one with better ergonomics, lenses. In most cases, Leica SL's 24Mps seem plenty for landscape photography.
-
Yes, your research is quite good. The difference is the criteria.
That's why I prefer to think in terms of apparent image size: ratio of image size to viewing distance. About 12MP, or at worst Ctein's 16MP, seems enough for "normal" viewing like an 8x10 print from a distance of 12 — and that could be inches or feet or meters. And under those conditions, diffraction does not hurt sharpness much until a bit beyond f/8 in 36x24mm format, so adequate DOF is usually not a problem. (Aside: it becomes f/32 for 5"x4" format, f/64 for 10"x; same DOF though!)
What mystifies me is how to get adequate DOF at 100MP and beyond: apertures need to be almost three times larger than at 12MP to control diffraction, and then to see all the extra detail you need to view prints almost three times bigger for the same viewing distance (or view from almost three time as close) which reduces even more the part that is in sharp focus. Are we then limited to grand outdoor scenes with no foreground needing to be sharply detailed?
P. S. Perhaps I am at an extreme: the only benefit I have seen from going beyond 10MP is more latitude for loose framing and "zoom by cropping" with moving and distant subjects like wildlife.
-
- A very demonstrative experiment is to downscale a high res image to 12 MP and than upsize to original resolution. Print both images at A2 size and check the differences. have you done that? I have…
Not fair, Erik, unless you are talking about non-Bayer cameras.
Jim
-
- It is often stated that around 180 PPI are needed for excellent prints, that happens to be 12 MP, pretty exactly.
- Above statement applies to 20/20 vision at 50 cm viewing distance
- A very demonstrative experiment is to downscale a high res image to 12 MP and than upsize to original resolution. Print both images at A2 size and check the differences. have you done that? I have…
- In an interview with Michael Reichmann here on Lula, Ctein's who is known as possibly the worlds best printing artist claims that 16 MP is good enough for A2 and can match anything he has shot on 67 film. It may be taken out of context, but it is still an interesting statement.
Not wanting nor able to argue with either Ctein nor Schewe (e.g. for a quick example here, www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/photography-workflow/the-right-resolution/), especially when upscaling to print at >3' sizes, I think I'll take the over on resolution all other things being equal. In my own prints and for fine art quality on gloss or high resolution luster papers, it seems to make a difference, especially up close (where one goes if really intrigued with a piece). Although it also seems to my 55 yr old reading glasses eyes that it's not much and inkjet printers definitely blur the pixels . . . it is still noticeable.
Jim, I'm going to demo both the GFX and X1D over the next month. I don't have any fancy science equipment, but if there's parts of Maui you'd like to see in Zerene 20 frame manual focus stacks I can try to accommodate.
-
Not to be contrary, but for the sake of diversity, as mentioned before I don’t print images and have not a single photo on my walls, not one. Still, I want and require large Mpx, if only to appreciate the kind and level of detail, the micro-contrast, etc. of the photos I take. My point is that, obviously, it is not all about larger sensors and printing. There is such a thing as “Seeing” our photos in the kind of detail that satisfies something, and that is somehow liberating.
-
Not to be contrary, but for the sake of diversity, as mentioned before I don’t print images and have not a single photo on my walls, not one. Still, I want and require large Mpx, if only to appreciate the kind and level of detail, the micro-contrast, etc. of the photos I take. My point is that, obviously, it is not all about larger sensors and printing. There is such a thing as “Seeing” our photos in the kind of detail that satisfies something, and that is somehow liberating.
An inarguable observation, even if no one else sees it (pun intended).
-
There is no theoretical limit on the resolution of lenses, except diffraction. Diffraction, however, should not be under-estimated, as we also need some depth of field unless shooting perfectly flat subjects. In normal photographic practice, the compromises between diffraction and depth of field are real, as anybody who tried to use a 8"x10" view camera would find out. This compromise also becomes apparent when stitching is used to increase resolution: only landscapes at far distance are routinely imaged.
There is no theoretical limit, but there are practical ones. Optics have made progresses, but not as fast as electronics. In practice, lenses are compromises on aberrations, price and size/weight. The optical engineer can build very good lenses for high-definition MF sensors, but they will be huge and heavy. When they are not, other tricks are used like software corrections of distortion or chromatic aberrations to relax the constraints a bit.
So what gives? At present, the maximum resolution available in a single lens frame is 200 mpix (by moving the sensor around). Presently available MF lenses cope, when stopped down a bit. An educated guess is that this would also be around the practical limit, give or take some.
Another important fact is that seemingly large increases in number of pixels correspond to relatively moderate increase in practical detail level. A good rule of thumb is that, to get a noticeable effect, one needs to double the resolution. This is very noticeable for 24x36 cameras where the manufacturers present resolution increase between, say, 36 and 42 mpix as significant while they are not unless peeping pixels. Today, the maximum resolution for 24x36 cameras is 50 mpix. An increase to, say, 70 mpix is not likely to break the lenses.
Hi,
Increasing sensor resolution will improve any lens. The MTF of the system is MTF of the lens times the MTF of the sensor. So as long as the MTF of the lens is above zero it will gain image quality when paired with a better sensor.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
Why do you cite my message to post something completely unrelated to it? I included my message in the above quote for your convenience.
Best regards
Landscapephoto
-
At present, the maximum resolution available in a single lens frame is 200 mpix (by moving the sensor around).
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the Hassy piezo-motion camera?
Jim
-
Unsure, but as I read through it, I thought the poster refered to a recent prosumer camera maker this last year that vibrates the sensor in favor of bigger resolution in raw files. Interesting idea that doesn't seem yet to be catching on. The Hassy piezo thing probably more on point, which I don't get yet. I, for one, appreciate Erik's thoughts and do think his short reply was quite responsive and thought provoking in the equally or more interesting subjects landscapephoto touched on.
Lenses obviously are important to answers in the questions posted here. In that light, I see an older article here, https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses. Doesn't seem immediately like Michael's voice, but maybe. Regardless, no doubt he was the publisher and many people's mentor, at least mine of sorts.
That doesn't resolve, but hopefully feeds in.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the Hassy piezo-motion camera?
Yes. These cameras will sample a single frame as projected by the lens with the equivalent of 200 mpix. They allow us to know how the lens would behave on a 200 mpix sensor.
-
Hi,
The point I try to make is that most lenses will perform better if paired with a higher resolution sensor.
So, if you combine a decent quality lens with say a 50 MP sensor it will transfer better detail than it would do say with 21 MP sensor. Just as an example, Canon used to have a very good 24-70/2.8LII lens, but paired with the Canon 5DIII it could not match the weaker Nikon 24-70/2.8 lens on the D800E: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison/
Another way to see it, any lens that can produce moiré on a sensor would be better served with a higher resolution sensor.
Tim Parkin has looked into this a bit back in 2012 and he found that the Nikon D800E (36MP) delivered better detail at f/22 than the 24MP Sony Alpha 900 at f/5.6. That article is here: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/08/the-diffraction-limit-how-small-is-too-small/
My take is that pixels can shrink quiet a bit, but I don't think we will see a very rapid increase in megapixels. There is probably some ideal size of pixels, taking all parameters into account. You want to keep wiring area to photodiode area low, and I guess that there is also some concerns about crosstalk.
Lenses can probably improve a lot. There is an unfortunate trend that many high quality lenses are large aperture designs that drive both cost and weights upwards. There are some exceptions, like the Zeiss Batis line that combines relatively moderate apertures with high performance and moderate size.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
Increasing sensor resolution will improve any lens. The MTF of the system is MTF of the lens times the MTF of the sensor. So as long as the MTF of the lens is above zero it will gain image quality when paired with a better sensor.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
Why do you cite my message to post something completely unrelated to it? I included my message in the above quote for your convenience.
Best regards
Landscapephoto
-
Yes. These cameras will sample a single frame as projected by the lens with the equivalent of 200 mpix. They allow us to know how the lens would behave on a 200 mpix sensor.
Well, kinda. In H5D-200C 4-shot mode, there is no finer sampling than a 50 MP Bayer array (but better color). In 6 shot mode, there's a bit of intermediate sampling. There is no 16-shot mode any more. In addition, the fill factors do mot change from the 51 MP version of the Sony, so the effective aperture is about four times the area of that of a real 200 MP sensor. Also, Hasselblad offers no H-mount lenses optimized for 33x44mm. Put that all together and we're not seeing in 200C files what a real 200 MP camera cold do.
The Betterlight Super 10K would come closer.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
This calculation (http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/mtf10-results-for-a-simulated-otus/) of yours indicates that 2.0 micron pitch would be beneficial with the Otus at medium apertures.
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mtf10Otus2D.png)
An additional advantage of small pixels is that with small enough pixels we can drop the OLP filter, that also increases MTF.
But, going to very small pixels reduces DR for a few reasons. So, there is balance between DR and pixel size.
So, using 2 micron sensels we would end up with 216 MP on 24x36. But, we could use the same pixel size on 44x33 mm, yielding 363 MP. The Otus 55 and 85 seems not to be far from covering 44x33. It may be that available lenses would not be very sharp in the corners , but having excellent reproduction over a large sweet spot may be an attractive option.
On the other hand, I would say the stuff I have now (Sony A7rII and a bunch of decent zoom lenses) cover my needs pretty well. I see a bit more aliasing on the Sony A7rII than I would like. Smaller pixels could obviously help with that.
Best regards
Erik
Well, kinda. In H5D-200C 4-shot mode, there is no finer sampling than a 50 MP Bayer array (but better color). In 6 shot mode, there's a bit of intermediate sampling. There is no 16-shot mode any more. In addition, the fill factors do mot change from the 51 MP version of the Sony, so the effective aperture is about four times the area of that of a real 200 MP sensor. Also, Hasselblad offers no H-mount lenses optimized for 33x44mm. Put that all together and we're not seeing in 200C files what a real 200 MP camera cold do.
The Betterlight Super 10K would come closer.
Jim
-
Hi Jim,
This calculation (http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/mtf10-results-for-a-simulated-otus/) of yours indicates that 2.0 micron pitch would be beneficial with the Otus at medium apertures.
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/mtf10Otus2D.png)
Yes, although MTF10 is rather a specialized metric. I have since discovered that my earlier testing (that formed the basic ofr the model used for that graph) shortchanged the Otus at f/2 and f/2.8, though.
Jim
-
The point I try to make is that most lenses will perform better if paired with a higher resolution sensor.
OK. Now I understand what you mean.
The idea that a lens will perform better if paired with a higher resolution sensor is indeed true, up to a point. The problem here is "up to a point", which means that your theory will not hold for vastly different resolutions or for very small apertures, but that discussion would lead us too far for a simple photography forum.
Anyway, what I was saying is different; namely that we are approaching practical limits of what can be done with a camera on standard subjects. Your argument, if I have correctly understood, is that for any given resolution and camera, we will increase final sharpness if we add a few pixels to resolution. Under some assumptions this is true, but the increase of final sharpness is less and less visible. It is like an asymptotic limit, if you want to see it that way.
-
OK. Now I understand what you mean.
The idea that a lens will perform better if paired with a higher resolution sensor is indeed true, up to a point. The problem here is "up to a point", which means that your theory will not hold for vastly different resolutions or for very small apertures, but that discussion would lead us too far for a simple photography forum.
Anyway, what I was saying is different; namely that we are approaching practical limits of what can be done with a camera on standard subjects. Your argument, if I have correctly understood, is that for any given resolution and camera, we will increase final sharpness if we add a few pixels to resolution. Under some assumptions this is true, but the increase of final sharpness is less and less visible. It is like an asymptotic limit, if you want to see it that way.
Yes. People working with orbiting cameras have developed a metric to help them balance lens and sensor resolution:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/whats-your-q/
However, they normally work with diffraction-limited lenses and monochromatic sensors. It is possible to generalize the metric for Bayer GFAs, with some guesswork:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/interpreting-q-in-the-real-world/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/example-q-calculations-for-bayer-cfas/
By the way, I'm not sure the relationship between pitch and resolution-adjusted EDR that Erik talked about is all that solid.
Jim
-
Well, kinda. In H5D-200C 4-shot mode, there is no finer sampling than a 50 MP Bayer array (but better color). In 6 shot mode, there's a bit of intermediate sampling. There is no 16-shot mode any more. In addition, the fill factors do mot change from the 51 MP version of the Sony, so the effective aperture is about four times the area of that of a real 200 MP sensor. Also, Hasselblad offers no H-mount lenses optimized for 33x44mm. Put that all together and we're not seeing in 200C files what a real 200 MP camera cold do.
A few corrections.
First, there have been different cameras with 6-shots mode. The present one uses the Sony CMOS sized 33x44mm. Older ones used the Kodak CCD sized 39x50mm.
Second, in 6-shot mode, there is exactly the same bit of intermediate sampling as there is in the Bayer array (which does not sample all colors at all positions either).
Third, the aperture effect, which is indeed real, correspond to a relatively mild, non-destructive, low-pass filter. The effect can be removed in post.
I think that the 200 piezo backs indeed give us a good idea of the lens response on a native 200 mpix Bayer sensor.
-
Hi,
It is often called diminishing returns.
Personally, I am often shooting landscape and landscapes are often shot at infinity or we can often utilise Scheimpflug (that is tilts). So, I feel that the region I shoot within now, around 40 MP, is quite beneficial. On my P45+, moiré is a frequent problem, with the Sony A7rII less so. I am mostly shooting zooms and I still see some moiré on the A7rII, but I wouldn't really call it a problem.
I don't think that decreasing pixel size on the A7rII would make for a big improvement with my print sizes as I normally don't print larger than 28"x39". The major benefit of smaller pixels in MFD would be the reduction in aliasing.
My take is really that increasing sensor resolution may make it possible to have smaller, lighter and more affordable gear. Just as an example, we have really good 4/3" and APS-C gear now and such gear is quite adequate for A2/C-size prints.
Best regards
Erik
OK. Now I understand what you mean.
The idea that a lens will perform better if paired with a higher resolution sensor is indeed true, up to a point. The problem here is "up to a point", which means that your theory will not hold for vastly different resolutions or for very small apertures, but that discussion would lead us too far for a simple photography forum.
Anyway, what I was saying is different; namely that we are approaching practical limits of what can be done with a camera on standard subjects. Your argument, if I have correctly understood, is that for any given resolution and camera, we will increase final sharpness if we add a few pixels to resolution. Under some assumptions this is true, but the increase of final sharpness is less and less visible. It is like an asymptotic limit, if you want to see it that way.
-
A few corrections.
First, there have been different cameras with 6-shots mode. The present one uses the Sony CMOS sized 33x44mm. Older ones used the Kodak CCD sized 39x50mm.
Second, in 6-shot mode, there is exactly the same bit of intermediate sampling as there is in the Bayer array (which does not sample all colors at all positions either).
Third, the aperture effect, which is indeed real, correspond to a relatively mild, non-destructive, low-pass filter. The effect can be removed in post.
I think that the 200 piezo backs indeed give us a good idea of the lens response on a native 200 mpix Bayer sensor.
OK. Let's agree to disagree on that one. In a few years, we'll find out.
Jim
-
Yes. People working with orbiting cameras have developed a metric to help them balance lens and sensor resolution:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/whats-your-q/
However, they normally work with diffraction-limited lenses and monochromatic sensors. It is possible to generalize the metric for Bayer GFAs, with some guesswork:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/interpreting-q-in-the-real-world/
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/example-q-calculations-for-bayer-cfas/
It is a good post, and a good reminder that noticing the first effects of diffraction does not mean that one should strop increasing resolution. But it is not what I was talking about.
In your study, you make an untold assumption: that the subject is perfectly flat. You are only interested in what happen at the plane of sharpness. That implies a perfectly flat subject as in a test chart or a landscape far away (or an orbiting camera). It is useful, but there is a little more to photography than perfectly flat subjects.
If the subject is not flat, we as photographers need to balance sharpness and depth of field.
Interestingly, depth of field depends on resolution. To effectively use the extra resolution, we need bigger prints (and we also need to let the public look at them close). But then, on these huge prints, depth of field becomes a bigger problem as everything out of the plane of focus will appear more noticeably unsharp. If we want the tridimensional object that is photographed to appear reasonably sharp all over on a high resolution large print, we will need a smaller aperture than on a low resolution small print and then the effects of diffraction becomes more noticeable. The two requirements collide.
The effect is well known on large format film cameras. On these, the sensor (a sheet of film) has effectively a lot more resolution than necessary and everything is limited by diffraction because of the small apertures normally used to have some depth of field. Still: in practice depth of field and diffraction are a problem and movements are necessary to nudge the plane of focus to where it is most needed.
-
OK. Let's agree to disagree on that one. In a few years, we'll find out.
Or we could compare yesteryears multishot backs with today's higher resolution single shot backs.
-
If the subject is not flat, we as photographers need to balance sharpness and depth of field.
Yes:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/do-sharper-lenses-have-more-or-less-dof/
Background material starts here:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a-new-way-to-look-at-depth-of-field/
Jim
-
Hi,
Yes of course! But, many times medium apertures just work fine. Selective focus is one of the abstractions of photography. I always carry a HCam Master TS, a pocket size device that gives me tilt capability with my lenses from 16 to 135 mm on the A7rII.
I would agree that need of resolution has it's limits. But, I would also suggest that resolution is nice to have and never makes damage to pictures.
Best regards
Erik
It is a good post, and a good reminder that noticing the first effects of diffraction does not mean that one should strop increasing resolution. But it is not what I was talking about.
In your study, you make an untold assumption: that the subject is perfectly flat. You are only interested in what happen at the plane of sharpness. That implies a perfectly flat subject as in a test chart or a landscape far away (or an orbiting camera). It is useful, but there is a little more to photography than perfectly flat subjects.
If the subject is not flat, we as photographers need to balance sharpness and depth of field.
Interestingly, depth of field depends on resolution. To effectively use the extra resolution, we need bigger prints (and we also need to let the public look at them close). But then, on these huge prints, depth of field becomes a bigger problem as everything out of the plane of focus will appear more noticeably unsharp. If we want the tridimensional object that is photographed to appear reasonably sharp all over on a high resolution large print, we will need a smaller aperture than on a low resolution small print and then the effects of diffraction becomes more noticeable. The two requirements collide.
The effect is well known on large format film cameras. On these, the sensor (a sheet of film) has effectively a lot more resolution than necessary and everything is limited by diffraction because of the small apertures normally used to have some depth of field. Still: in practice depth of field and diffraction are a problem and movements are necessary to nudge the plane of focus to where it is most needed.
-
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/do-sharper-lenses-have-more-or-less-dof/
The article are interesting, and I would like to add some historical context. Around the beginning of the 20th century, opticians produced lenses to increase depth of field (which was a problem with slow emulsions in large format view cameras). One of the most famous makers were Pinkham & Smith, but there were others.
These lenses were all soft focus lenses, which made sense as limited depth of field were a problem mainly for portraits. They achieved both soft focus and increased depth of field by adding aberrations, for example spherical aberration. Pinkham & Smith hand retouched the lenses to give the same effect. Others used chromatic aberration to the same effect (on B&W film, of course).
The idea is that a lens with spherical aberration or a hand retouched lens will have different focus distances according to the path the rays take in the lens. So the image looks like a composite of several images taken with slightly varied focus. We could do the same on static subjects by varying the focus a bit while taking multiple exposures on the same piece of film. This makes highlights look as if they glow with light but also increases apparent depth of field.
In the 70s some add-on filters were developed to the same effect. Basically, they had little low-power lenses on their surfaces. Some, I think from Minolta, made the power of these extra lenses depend on wavelength so that the effect would only appear on some colors, while preserving apparent sharpness on others. This way skin detail could be preserved with softening and increased depth of field on different colors.
These effects are impossible to emulate in post, unless using a light field camera. That is: the softening can be emulated, but the increased depth of field cannot, unless combining pictures taken with varied focus (which a light field camera does by principle). But I am not aware of software doing that.