Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on February 07, 2012, 07:53:34 am
-
Nikon just announced their new D800 with 36 megapixels (full frame).
I guess this should have an impact on 31 and 40 mega backs. Or is this wish-full thinking?
-
Even the price is unbelievable at 2999 usd.
-
Keeping in mind many MF users don't use it because of the resolution (solely).
I think back to the release of the Pentax 645D, did it effect the prices much? A little, for the entry level stuff... but over all? Not really. Additionally, I like most others will probably wait to see how it performs really over all... right now we have some JPG's to go off, and that's it.
-
Prices of $15K and $17K for the Leaf Aptus-II 7 and the P30+ were already very unrealistic even before the D800.
It is hard to imagine that the prices for the 30MP backs would not go down...
-
From D800 announcement:
"D800 Primary Features
New Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor
The D800 is equipped with a new Nikon FX-format CMOS image sensor and the new EXPEED 3 image-processing engine for Nikon digital SLR cameras. This new image-processing engine is faster and offers greater performance. The camera also offers the world's highest* effective pixel count of 36.3-million pixels. When combined with the sharp rendering of NIKKOR lenses, images exhibiting resolution equal to that achieved with medium-format digital cameras are possible."
I find that hard to believe
-
Nikon just announced their new D800 with 36 megapixels (full frame).
I guess this should have an impact on 31 and 40 mega backs. Or is this wish-full thinking?
I guess it'll deflate the price of the smaller second hand backs. But I suspect that for smaller new backs the question is will they continue to be sold or will lower sales see them withdrawn from the range?
-
i can believe it but it's meaningless.
it's like saying that with this lens with resolving power X and this sensor pitch Y is the same or greater than than this medium format lens that can resolve Z and out resolves this sensor A.
what i do believe is that this camera and whatever canon announce soon of similar spec when paired with the best lenses in their respective ranges (and those from other manufacturers) will be the tool of choice many whose clients wish to have a 100mb tiff to go to print with.
faced with the choice of an expensive slow heavy noisy feature limited MF solution of 30-40 mpixels and a 36mpixel canikon i would choose the 35mm solution whoever is paying.
it's going to mean selling a few less than stellar lenses (45mm ts-e 24-70 2.8 ) but i'm never going to buy a MF camera now and just hire for the odd job that requires huge files. if canon don't respond with a similar camera then i'll swap to nikon and use the excellent canon manual focus 24 and 90 tse's and buy the nikon zooms. all for less than price of a phase one "value added warranty" and one of their better schneider lenses.
it's a no-brainer.
-
Keeping in mind many MF users don't use it because of the resolution (solely).
Indeed, and that's why I think that 36 MP FFDSLRs won't make that much difference to pricing of MFD systems.
Even in an age of 21-24 MP FFDSLRs, 16-22 MP MF backs still sold, at considerably higher prices. This is just the same thing.
The premise of the question seems to be that all photographers are megapixel whores and platform flippertigibbets (great word that!). There are many diverse reasons why we bought into our medium format systems, and a 36MP DSLR isn't going to change those reasons. More likely, we'll add one alongside our MF systems, as I've done for example with a 5DII.
Ray
-
Prices of $15K and $17K for the Leaf Aptus-II 7 and the P30+ were already very unrealistic even before the D800.
It is hard to imagine that the prices for the 30MP backs would not go down...
I think that they won't, or marginally but not enough to stop the bleeding.
They don't target any more the active professional who need to look in his bank account. They know that this battle is lost already against giants of this industry with much more
technological power and infrastructures.
They target the retiree pro, the wealphy amateur, the museums and specialized institutions, gallery artists but their really pro client isn't where the money is and it will be less and less truth.
I understand their position, at the same time, I think they really need new creative staff. Look at Red, this isn't a big company, but they are on their way to dominate a huge market.
MF have been really slow to react to the evolution, they haven't been visionary but conservative. This world changes at the speed of light and MF changes at the speed of a turtle. Soon or later, this will cost something somewhere.
I don't think honestly that if there is not a serious reaction soon and a complete rebuilt of their mentalities, they will disappear or forced to be even more specialized and therefore more expensive.
-
"but their really pro client isn't where the money is "
true, you only have to look at the users on here who are swapping around between Leica/IQ-380/HD-5-381ms/leaf-382 like they are playing with small change yet they are not working photographers.
maybe phase one should consider using green crocodile leather panels or a titanium body mercedes/mont blanc/moet special edition camera to increase market share?
-
"but their really pro client isn't where the money is "
true, you only have to look at the users on here who are swapping around between Leica/IQ-380/HD-5-381ms/leaf-382 like they are playing with small change yet they are not working photographers.
maybe phase one should consider using green crocodile leather panels or a titanium body mercedes/mont blanc/moet special edition camera to increase market share?
Oh, that's already a Leica pattent no? And it seems that they did well with those "editions". Why not?
More seriously, today at 11 am I took coffee with a well established commercial pro here (canon, Blad user), quite old fox of the old school. We talked precisely about all that, MF, the new dslr multimedia stuff etc...
He looked at me and said: the thrill today is a Red system.
-
35mm does not equal medium format just because the sensor size is different. However, considering the completely misinformed public on this matter, and considering I don't have enough money to buy a P65+ back for my Contax, I sure hope it ends up lowering the price! ;) ;D
-
The D800 will likely lure those away from MFDBs who insist on counting megapixels rather than measuring sensor size or DR. Same is true for those who think in terms of "good enough". I don't see it affecting the price of MF digital in any way. The entry-level offerings from Mamiya/Leaf/Phase and Pentax are already a pretty great deal. How low can they really go? $9K? $8K? Lower?
-
But I suspect that for smaller new backs the question is will they continue to be sold or will lower sales see them withdrawn from the range?
I believe you are right. Rather than lowering prices it is more likely that lower MP backs no longer will be sold.
-
The D800 will likely lure those away from MFDBs who insist on counting megapixels rather than measuring sensor size or DR.
or price, or portability or noise performance at 400/800/1200+ iso's.
not every imaging system provides all the answers for every photographer which is why there will always be a market for different cameras, a 36mpixel camera with high quality lenses (including 'architecural' and 'studio' focal lengths with shift/tilt movements) is the holy grail for me, MF delivers some of my requirements some of the time at significant cost. so on a business level MF isn't making any sense for me.
this doesn't mean phamiyablad are now history it just means their market will shrink a little unless they can innovate and make people change in the same way as the 22 and 49mp backs did, this was when a lot of people i know jumped from film, these same people then ditched what 35mm gear they had (even though they didn't use it very often) and bought a 5d or a 5dII.
i was talking to a colleague today and he said he is never going to buy another MF back but stick to his p45 and buy a nikon outfit for not a lot of £££ i suspect others will be thinking the same.
-
The D800 will likely lure those away from MFDBs who insist on counting megapixels rather than measuring sensor size or DR. Same is true for those who think in terms of "good enough". I don't see it affecting the price of MF digital in any way. The entry-level offerings from Mamiya/Leaf/Phase and Pentax are already a pretty great deal. How low can they really go? $9K? $8K? Lower?
You are right, Tim! I've been researching the market for last few months, since I want to buy MF system. To be honest, I was attracted by entry level offerings of used equipment ( those under 6K Mamiya kits on CI). But, because I don't think in terms of "good enough" (otherwise I wouldn't be looking into MF at all - which brings another question-who are these entry level MF's for?) I realized those kits are not the best (older technology or cropped sensor or both). And then I got stuck :-\.
The cheapest option for large sensor with newer technology (AptusII 10, Hasselblad H4D 50, Phase One 65+ or IQ160) are all over 30K, or even 40K. I want it, I need it, but I have a lot, lot more thinking to do, because it's sooo expensive.
So now, I don't know what to do, I'm getting tired of all the thinking.
-
The premise of the question seems to be that all photographers are megapixel whores ...
No, not _all_: only that _some_ significant proportion of photographers are currently use MF rather than 35mm format primarily for resolute reasons, and so a good number of them will soon be lost to the MF market.
Actually, that might just increase the pricing of MF bodies and lenses, by moving them to even lower sales volume.
-
The D800 will likely lure those away from MFDBs who insist on counting megapixels rather than measuring sensor size or DR.
I would remove DR from that list of MF advantages: my prediction is that DR will favor the D800 over DMF CCDs with their far worse read noise levels (now about five to ten times worse than good CMOS sensors).
Does that just leave MF the market for those who need even more resolution, and the dilettantes who blindly believe that "the sensor is bigger, so the results must be better"? Hopefully not; if only because MF lens systems offer some continuing IQ advantages for some uses.
-
They target the retiree pro, the wealphy amateur, the museums and specialized institutions, gallery artists but their really pro client isn't where the money is and it will be less and less truth.
I believe Leica will end up taking this market. I don't believe there is enough room for 2 or 3 companies.
I don't think honestly that if there is not a serious reaction soon and a complete rebuilt of their mentalities, they will disappear or forced to be even more specialized and therefore more expensive.
50-200MP backs at $30-40K prices and very specific industries. I believe you are right.
-
this doesn't mean phamiyablad are now history it just means their market will shrink a little unless
You're right. Every time 35mm digital raises the image quality bar it takes a bite out of the potential medium format market.
Go back to the end of the 20th century and the single largest component of the medium format market were wedding photographers, I'd guess the great majority have already jumped ship to 35mm digital and innovations like the new Nikon will see a few more go the same way. Then there's catalogue and pack photographers, factor in the latest generation of 35mm tilt & shift lenses and many of them will be following suit.
Of course there are always marginal image quality advantages, and for those printing A2 or larger, or with unlimited personal or corporate budgets, they'll stay with medium format digital as long as the manufacturers stay in business. But the technologies of four colour web offset printing isn't developing anywhere near as fast, and for up to a double page spread these very latest 35mm cameras must offer a very tempting alternative.
-
I would remove DR from that list of MF advantages: my prediction is that DR will favor the D800 over DMF CCDs with their far worse read noise levels (now about five to ten times worse than good CMOS sensors).
Does that just leave MF the market for those who need even more resolution, and the dilettantes who blindly believe that "the sensor is bigger, so the results must be better"? Hopefully not; if only because MF lens systems offer some continuing IQ advantages for some uses.
True, but don't forget that there are MF CMOS backs allegedly coming over the hill any day now! If (big if) that happens, it levels the noise/ISO/DR playing field, and then sensor size matters again.
Ray
-
Probably the majority of MFDB owners also own a DSLR too. I'm betting these new high pixel count DSLR's won't cut into new MFDB sales, however many will also buy the DSLR. I certainly might. As far as pricing... if the sales volume goes down on the MFDB then prices will have to go up not down.
-
True, but don't forget that there are MF CMOS backs allegedly coming over the hill any day now! If (big if) that happens, it levels the noise/ISO/DR playing field, and then sensor size matters again.
Agreed, as I said in another thread on this topic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62244.msg500981#msg500981
Can you point to signs that such "big CMOS" is coming? I can vaguely see Fujiflm trying MF sensors again: the failure of its MF sized SuperCCD seemed to be due to "politics" like the inertia of MF back makers, despite its good promise of performance advantages over the traditional Full Frame CCD technology offers by Kodak and Dalsa. Maybe products like the D800 will wake DMF makers up to the commercial need to move on from CCDs.
-
Agreed, as I said in another thread on this topic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62244.msg500981#msg500981
Can you point to signs that such "big CMOS" is coming? I can vaguely see Fujiflm trying MF sensors again: the failure of its MF sized SuperCCD seemed to be due to "politics" like the inertia of MF back makers, despite its good promise of performance advantages over the traditional Full Frame CCD technology offers by Kodak and Dalsa. Maybe products like the D800 will wake DMF makers up to the commercial need to move on from CCDs.
I'm afraid I can't - someone else posted that rumour originally, based on Phase One dealer chatter.
-
No way I am buying a 36 MP DSLR system. Currently I am in the middle of a 6 week catalogue shoot. Most images will print A5. Some going to A4 and a few to dps. A very few will make it to point do sale posters and such. I am shooting most of it, and all of the modeled clothing on the Aptus 12. I simply output the file size I need. Hardly any post on the files. Just not needed. Thousands of images and any time saving on post is a money saving for me.
Sorry to say but the dslrs don't work out for me. I find I have to work harder to get the images my clients.
Friend of mine is a sponsored Nikon user on the local scene. He has tested the new Nikon and says that the image quality is fantastic. Not great at high iso and pretty hard on lenses. He also told me that he didn't think it a match for the Leaf Aptus 7, a back he is very familiar with. All in all he thinks it a great camera and exceptional value.
We will see no doubt.
-
in the uk the back alone is £30,000 you pays your money and you makes your choice ::)
-
Friend of mine is a sponsored Nikon user on the local scene. He has tested the new Nikon and says that the image quality is fantastic. Not great at high iso and pretty hard on lenses. He also told me that he didn't think it a match for the Leaf Aptus 7, a back he is very familiar with. All in all he thinks it a great camera and exceptional value.
I am sure the Leaf Aptus-II 7 is better, has a more appealing and different look, etc but at the end of the day it is $3K versus $15K (back alone) and well, if the D800 is close enough... No doubt in my mind that the D800 and the unavoidable soon to come answer from Canon will further erode MFD sales and conseuently will make MFD more expensive.
-
I already put in a pre-order for the Nikon 800E which will replace my Sony A900. I expect the DR of the D800 to be equal or better than the DR in my Hasselblad H3DII-39. Certainly high ISO will be much better. Depending on how good the IQ is of the D800 I will decide whether to sell my H3DII now or wait until the new Sony A99 with 48mp comes out. I expect the price I can get for my H3DII will drop by about 30% over the next few months to $10K or less. Fortunately I have full-frame lenses for both Sony and Nikon.
==Doug
-
I've been looking at the samples from the d800e and I am really not that impressed. Even my lowly 28mp leaf aptus-6 II on my rz67 produces much sharper results. I do not know if its the lenses or what but the d800e images just do not have very much snap or 3d to them.
-
I think there's a difference in quality compared to the LPF enhanced photo's... the 800E is certainly the right choice.
In any case, it'll come down to personally trying it and seeing how it responds.
-
I took a look at the photo gallery on Nikon's website as well. Underwhelming is indeed the word... I am sure the camera is capable of doing much better.
-
Price is determined by sensor size, primarily.
And image samples are usually crap, whether it's Canon, Nikon, Phase One, Leaf, whatever...
-
I took a look at the photo gallery on Nikon's website as well. Underwhelming is indeed the word... I am sure the camera is capable of doing much better.
Maybe you still want to have a look at the AFi-ii 7 then? ;D
-
I think that today's xkcd cartoon (http://xkcd.com/1014/) fits quite aptly with this thread!
(and don't forget to mouse-over the cartoon for the bonus punchline)
Ray
-
The sample photographs are not very convincing. Yes it's a terrific DSLR, no it's not medium format quality. Compared to a Pentax 645D those files looks smudgy, lacking detail and sharpness. I don't believe for a minute it will make quality 40x50" prints anything like that from a 645D.
I remember when the Canon 7D came out and everyone was hyping up the image quality to be the equal of, or better than, the 5D MKII. Wait for the hype to die down and we can see some real tests.
-
The sample photographs are not very convincing. Yes it's a terrific DSLR, no it's not medium format quality. Compared to a Pentax 645D those files looks smudgy, lacking detail and sharpness. I don't believe for a minute it will make quality 40x50" prints anything like that from a 645D.
There is in fact zero theoretical reason why it wouldn't be every bit as good but it is true that the current samples are not as good as expertly processed 645D files.
The question is whether better lenses, technique and processing can close the gap or not.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anyone, once there are any reliable 800E tests (reliable = made by someone knowledgable, crafty and possibly unbiased photographer), please post it here or at new LuLa thread. I'm very curious.. and I hope Canon follows the trend. It would be really nice if the gap between digibacks and DSLRs would shrink again significantly.
-
It doesn't make sense for Nikon to post sub par images from the camera as samples but it is a possibility.
The smaller pixel pitch of the Nikon is a very possible limitation of this camera. The highly pixel packed sensor puts a lot of pressure on the lenses and the laws of physics may prevent the camera from achieving the theoretical image quality expected. Diffraction will be a big problem beginning to show at larger apertures.
In an interview between Michael Reichmann and Norman Koren they discussed all this and stated that 5 microns is about the tipping point and this camera has a 4.9 micron pixel size.
Theory aside, it would certainly be nice to think we can get medium format quality in a $3300 camera but I will need to see an exponential improvement in the D800 samples before I agree they are getting close.
-
There is in fact zero theoretical reason why it wouldn't be every bit as good but it is true that the current samples are not as good as expertly processed 645D files.
There are theoretical reasons - diffraction and aberrations. The pixel count may be similar but the Nikon pixels are smaller, so to counter diffraction they must be shot ~ 2/3rd stops more open in aperture (this also more or less equalises the DOF). But then that is demanding a higher level of aberration correction in the Nikon lenses. In terms of optical design, that's a lose-lose situation: not only must the Nikon lenses be corrected to meet a tougher absolute aberration target (a smaller spot size corresponding to the smaller pixel), but they must hit these targets 2/3rd stops faster than the Pentax lenses, at all stops.
Ray
-
Which makes me wonder if camera manufacturers have hit the limit with the Bayer pattern sensor...
-
Which makes me wonder if camera manufacturers have hit the limit with the Bayer pattern sensor...
I am surprised you come to this conclusion if it is based on the couple of preseding posts. Would the previous posts not rather suggest that the camera manufacturers may have hit the limit of lense resolution for 35mm?
I believe that a monochrome or (currently non-realizable) Foveon/3CCD-sensor may read 4x or so the number of photons for a given sensor size/lense and may give a relevant spatial resolution improvement anywhere from 1x to 2x in each dimension for a flawless lense, and assuming that OLPF can be seriously relaxed. (Ie if the lense is the significant limitation, benefits of exotic sensors over Bayer should be smaller than expected).
I belive that other noise-sources can be improved for all sensor types without hitting similar "hard physical walls" anytime soon. (Ie, I believe that dynamic range at low ISO can be significantly improved for Bayer).
-h
-
... to counter diffraction they must be shot ~ 2/3 stops more open in aperture (this also more or less equalises the DOF). But then that is demanding a higher level of aberration correction in the Nikon lenses.
Please check out this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62157.0
The surprising [to me] fact is that simply scaling the same lens design down for use with a smaller format reduces the aberrations at a given f-stop, since there is some dependency of aberrations on actual aperture diameter (entrance pupil size?) rather than aperture ratio. So the general trend of better aberration performance from smaller format lenses when compared at equal, low f-stop is not necessarily all about working harder on lens corrections.
Still, this is not enough to give equal aberration effects at equal aperture size, as needed for equal control of OOF effects and diffraction effects, so large format should have at least a small win with optimal aperture choices in each format.
My proposed rules of thumb are:
- if your needs for DOF require the "sweet spot" aperture ratio or higher in one format, there is little room for a sharpness benefit in a larger format; at larger apertures there might be.
- The sweet-spot aperture ratio gets a bit lower as the format gets smaller, and is often now f/4 or f5.6 for DSLR lenses, not the f/8 often cited for lenses in 35mm format from the film era.
-
It doesn't make sense for Nikon to post sub par images from the camera as samples but it is a possibility.
The smaller pixel pitch of the Nikon is a very possible limitation of this camera. The highly pixel packed sensor puts a lot of pressure on the lenses and the laws of physics may prevent the camera from achieving the theoretical image quality expected. Diffraction will be a big problem beginning to show at larger apertures.
In an interview between Michael Reichmann and Norman Koren they discussed all this and stated that 5 microns is about the tipping point and this camera has a 4.9 micron pixel size.
Theory aside, it would certainly be nice to think we can get medium format quality in a $3300 camera but I will need to see an exponential improvement in the D800 samples before I agree they are getting close.
We shall wait and see. Also for me the DxO mark results will help settle the questions. Manufacture samples are not always the best (minus sigma), maybe because they are working with pre production cameras.
I don't know if the MF companies will react or not. They did not did so in the face of the Pentax. This machine, if it performs on par to the D3x will be pretty solid for the wedding market.
The other question is Leica, but they appear to live in a different market altogether.
Best regards,
James
-
- The sweet-spot aperture ratio gets a bit lower as the format gets smaller, and is often now f/4 or f5.6 for DSLR lenses, not the f/8 often cited for lenses in 35mm format from the film era.
And the sweet spot for MF is probably around f7.1 so all in all you get more DoF with 35mm at the optimal aperture.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
How did you arrive at the f/7.1 figure? I'd guess it varies a lot with lenses.
On the other hand, reduced DoF is one of the purported advantages of MF.
A bigger sensor will always have some benefits. It collects more photons and has inherent advantage in MTF as it places less demand on the lens. Also, there are some really good lenses for MF out there.
On the other hand there are a lot of factors, not all measurable. MF is said to have some magical properties, some of those may be nice aliasing artifacts ;-)
Best regards
Erik
And the sweet spot for MF is probably around f7.1 so all in all you get more DoF with 35mm at the optimal aperture.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure where you get the f/7.1 "sweet spot" for MF. Most pixel peepers for the Pentax 645D puts the sweet spot at about f/11 to f/13. (Oddly enough most pixel peepers put the sweet spot at about f/11 regardless of format.)
-
Hi,
Regarding the sweet spot, the better the lens the higher the sweet spot. The sweet spot is where the lens is limited by diffraction. So if a lens has best performance at f/11 it is actually not a very good lens. The best MF lenses will reach optimum performance at f/5.6, that probably applies to Schneider and Rodenstock HR Digitars (or what they are called) and also Leica S2 lenses.
I would expect a properly adjusted D800E with a truly excellent lens at f/5.6 to outperform any 40 MB back with any lens at f/11 based on simple theory. How things work out in practice we need to wait and see.
One reason that we often put the sweet spot at f/11 is that it as far you can stop down before diffraction limits resolution on most lenses. But some lenses reach peak much earlier. Smaller formats need better lenses, and many of the better lenses on 4/3 reach their optimum around f/5.6 or even earlier. The diffraction limit is inversely proportional to the f stop, so doubling fstop halves MTF at a given frequency.
Here is a sample showing some practical effects: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=1
The left column corresponds to diffraction. I would argue that the lens tested performs best at f/5.6, but I freely admit that it is not twice as good at f/5.6 as at f/11.
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure where you get the f/7.1 "sweet spot" for MF. Most pixel peepers for the Pentax 645D puts the sweet spot at about f/11 to f/13. (Oddly enough most pixel peepers put the sweet spot at about f/11 regardless of format.)
-
I am not sure where you get the f/7.1 "sweet spot" for MF. Most pixel peepers for the Pentax 645D puts the sweet spot at about f/11 to f/13. (Oddly enough most pixel peepers put the sweet spot at about f/11 regardless of format.)
That's what I used to see with my D3x whose pixels are about the same size as those of the 645D.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A bigger sensor will always have some benefits. It collects more photons and has inherent advantage in MTF as it places less demand on the lens.
Building a a scale 24:1 bridge to 1mm accuracy must be a lot easier than building a full-size bridge to 1mm accuracy.
Building a 4/3 lense to x nm accuracy must be a lot easier than building a MF, LF or astronomy-size lense to x nm accuracy.
I am guessing that economy is a large factor - perhaps more than fundamental physical limits. Even if a 20mm f/0.3 lense for mf43 that sharply resolves 30 megapix is at all possible, it might not make sense to sell it at "MF lense prices".
-h
-
Hi,
I actually don't think it is possible to buil a lens with as large aperture as f/0.3 because there would be total reflection on glass to air surfaces. That is part of the reason that some microscope lenses are used immersed in fluid.
Best regards
Erik
Even if a 20mm f/0.3 lense for mf43 that sharply resolves 30 megapix is at all possible, it might not make sense to sell it at "MF lense prices".
-h
-
One reason that we often put the sweet spot at f/11 is that it as far you can stop down before diffraction limits resolution on most lenses. But some lenses reach peak much earlier. Smaller formats need better lenses, and many of the better lenses on 4/3 reach their optimum around f/5.6 or even earlier.
The tendency to claim f/11 as optimal may also be because the centre of the image could be great by f/5.6, but the corners mightn't catch up until f/11, especially with wideangles.
Ray
-
A couple of comments and responses.
- AFAIK, there is a hard lower limit of f/0.5 ... but in practice, I doubt we will ever see below the f/0.95 of a few exotic lenses available for M-mount, micro Four Thirds etc.
- My apologies for introducing the simplistic idea of a single "sweet spot" aperture, based on the idea of optimizing resolution (MTF?) for an exactly on-axis, in-focus subject. In other words, mostly or entirely a balancing of diffraction vs spherical aberration. I agree with the idea that the "f/11 MF lens sweet spot" idea is probably a threshold for no visible aberrations, including coma and astigmatism in the corners and edges.
- As I have noted before, simply scaling down a lens design reduces aberrations at equal f-stop. On the other hand, aberrations at equal effective aperture diameter (giving about equal diffraction and OOF effects) are almost certainly lower for the larger format version of the same lens design. For one thing, I believe that chromatic aberration is equal at equal f-stop, but I wonder if one of our telescope/lens optics students can comment on that.
- For us in the 99% (of camera buyers, ranked by budget constraints), the relevant terms of comparison for high quality lenses is sometimes to look at alternatives of roughly equal cost. Here, a smaller format can afford to use materials of higher price per unit weight, say by having more lens elements that use exotic glasses, or more elaborate fabrication procedures. I believe that some aspherical lens elements are molded, requiring cooling in the mold, and that would probably by distinctly easier and cheaper to do in smaller sizes, due to factors like the way cooling time and uniformity scales with size. For example, Olympus seems to be pushing the use of ever more elaborate aspherical designs in m43 lately.
- For extreme close-ups ("macro") there is a fairly clear win for forming and recording a smaller, higher resolution image and then enlarging more later, since in this realm the small apertures needed for adequate DOF control aberrations well. This is a major reason for my preference for smaller pixels and optimizing lens resolution in l/mm rather than l/ph (not necessarily meaning using a smaller sensor though: I can crop.)
-
I think what killed the medium format was not the megapixel count, a D800 is not going to beat the aged 33 or 39 mp backs in control or reasonable light. What makes the DSLR so good is the ability to shoot poor light with high quality, and now, large files.
I think people's desire to try better camera is still there, and the digital back is still the dream, even though it is not for everyone. I think the digital back sales will be dropped, not sure if price will drop that much. The biggest reason for the high price is the small quantity to cover the cost and R&D, sad truth!
Pingang
-
"the digital back is still the dream"
it's a nightmare when time/budget means you can't have a couple of assistants and 5-10k joules of lighting but need to shoot at 400asa in available light with maybe a couple of flashguns to hand.
the advantage of handing your client a 100mb+ tiff is lost if there's no ££££ left over after production costs or the file is noisy with subject movement because you couldn't shoot above 125th or above 100asa. a d800 tiff is big enough for most uses (i remember that being said about the p25).
i can see these new 35mm cameras eroding the MF market share even further unless they can either reduce prices or innovate, which is unlikely given the constraints of being subject to the whims of chip suppliers and the small size of the market.
-
DSLR hasn't yet killed MFDB and is not likely to. We have been over this countless times and every time a new hi res DSLR comes out the death of MFDB is predicted.
The same arguments made now were made before digital. MF had a lot of the same disadvantages then as they have now. A new film would come out and people would say we no longer need MF yet it stuck around. Many of the people that predicted the death of MF never used the equipment then and is most likely true for MFDB now.
Thursday I shot in my studio a model jumping high in the air. Client needed a file for a building wrap and for use in catalogue and POS banners. Shot using 6k of Elinchrom lighting at a thousands of a second on a Leaf Aptus12. No moire issues, no trouble with flash sync ant the high shutter speed. Pin sharp image at F11. Happy client and he has booked 5 weeks for next years catalogue. This is not a client that would like me to show up with a camera that cost less than a decent bicycle. Part of it might be placating a client, part of it might be creating barriers to entry to protect my market. I don't care. If leaf show up with a 120 MP camera I place the order.
-
i don't think anyone would say 35mm will kill off MF that would be foolish.
they are tools that have their place but those areas are being eroded, when i started in this business i didn't even own a 35mm camera (or dirty-five mil as i called it) and shot on H/blad/5x4/10x8 for the quality now 80% of jobs are shot on 35mm digital and only when huge files are needed is MF used.
-
i don't think anyone would say 35mm will kill off MF that would be foolish.
they are tools that have their place but those areas are being eroded, when i started in this business i didn't even own a 35mm camera (or dirty-five mil as i called it) and shot on H/blad/5x4/10x8 for the quality now 80% of jobs are shot on 35mm digital and only when huge files are needed is MF used.
35mm won't kill MF. Red camera probably will. IMHO.
Hey....just teasing.
-
I think no 35 camera will kill medium format. However, with every generation dslr's get better in almost any respect making them very attractive, actually very hard to resist. This in consequence, eats big chunks of money out of MF manufacturers for further research. The result, is slowing down advancements and low sales keep prices way too high. For the dslr manufactures is exactly the opposite. Despite the wave of mirrorless camera taking important market shares, dslr's are going to be the kings of technology and sales for the next 10 years, probably a lot more. 30,000 units sales per month for the D800 only. Do the math. That means tons of money for research. Every year the gap in quality between MF and FF will get smaller.
Eduardo
-
More seriously, I think that the technology-needs evolution is such that to grow, it will be difficult for smaller structures to follow, being inovative within reasonable cost.
The reality is that today MF, like it or not, beleive it or not, deliver the highest still quality at based isos, and 35mm aren't going to change that tomorrow. Until MF have this advantage, they will have clients and clients ready to pay high prices.
But the technology race of the giants, and specially looking at the latest evolutions, it's clear that the buzz isn't happening in MF and this race could change the game at one point because they go faster and are more agressive and have the structures for. I'm not sure those manufacturers who still think "familly business like" like Hasselblad or Phase have the capacity to engage this technology race, or they'd have to merge with bigger partners and loose control on their own brand.
After all those years, it's amazing that none engineering answers have been adressed not even close to the live-view on CCDs.
I don't think that the kid's generation (future MF potential buyers), used to small fast gear, multi format and multimedia, that have growned with this lenguage since they were in their mon's bellies will be attracted by the 50.000€ MF cameras in the current form to be honest. This will be diluted step by step by its own course into a vintage museum.
-
As one of those kids fred talks about, but with certain respect to MF after having assisted people shooting Hasselblad and played with it 5 minutes I think it's a matter of R+D and sensor size, so we just have to wait until canon, nikon or sony developes a system like pentax or Leica did but with the technology and the R&D power that selling thousands of entry level reflex and point and shoot cameras gives them.
Just imagine, a d3x-1ds like body, CMOS MF size sensor, quick shooting, quick processing, decent screen, leaf shutter, great high ISO (huge pixels) the downside would be new camera system, so it would not be cheap.
Another possible scenario is one big 35mm company buying (for example) hasselblad and push the H system with newer technology.
-
I think what killed the medium format was not the megapixel count, a D800 is not going to beat the aged 33 or 39 mp backs in control or reasonable light.
That will be easy enough to verify in 2 months from now.
My personal bet is a D800 win along most metrics, but I could be wrong. ;D
I think people's desire to try better camera is still there, and the digital back is still the dream, even though it is not for everyone. I think the digital back sales will be dropped, not sure if price will drop that much. The biggest reason for the high price is the small quantity to cover the cost and R&D, sad truth!
There is nothing unavoidable about this. The current situation is the result of business decisions by the people running the MF companies. Pentax has clearly proven that it is possible to deliver a superior camera at a much lower price point.
Most companies assess the market, understand the value that needs to be delivered at a given price point and develop accordingly. The clear exception is luxury goods where the price is computed based on an assessement of the want of potential buyers (high end audio is a relevant example here). It could be argued that the initial pricing of high end digital backs was computed in terms of value relative to film cost savings, but this argument doesn't stand anymore.
We hear hundreds of photographers claim they want to work with MF. I can relate to that, but those guys are not saying that they want to keep paying 40,000 US$ for a new top back every 4 years. Those guys are saying they want to use equipment that gives them a good safety margin relative to their actual needs. The problem is that the D800 does that also for 99% of actual needs and so does the Pentax 645D.
Once photographers realize that these claims are not the result of some brand fan boyism but the result of real world usage, they will get back to Phaseone and Hassy and tell them "guys, I like you, you deliver good products, but so do the other guys. Considering the number of people willing to shoot phaseone, price your top offering at 15,000 US$, the medium level at 10,000 US$ and the entry at 7,000 US$ and you'll make a lot more people happy".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... we just have to wait until canon, nikon or sony developes a system like pentax or Leica did ...
Just imagine, a d3x-1ds like body, CMOS MF size sensor, quick shooting, quick processing, decent screen, leaf shutter, great high ISO (huge pixels) the downside would be new camera system, so it would not be cheap.
This wish keeps coming up, but it is almost certainly not going to happen. For those big players, by far the most cost effective strategy to win sales from MF is the one they have been following for a decade or more: make their cameras suitable to do more and more of what formerly required a larger format, leaving an ever shrinking sector for MF and LF. The lens systems needed are one major factor: not that Canon or Nikon ,could not afford the development costs, but that the cost would be too high re
Active to the increased earnings to make it worthwhile. I look at it this way: medium format was a relatively far larger market sector compared to 35mm and below with film than it is with digital, and neither Canon nor Nikon ever bothered to move into MF then, so they have even less reason to do so now. I keep hearing arguments about needing a "complete system" and "prestige", but those factors didn't do the job in the film era, and I see no reasons why it should change now. More to the point, despite speculation about this for a decade or more, there has not been the slightest hint of it.
Going even further back, none of the major MF makers bothered to go into LF, and Leica did not move into MF in the film ea, but did no only as a "retreat uphill", perhaps learning from Contax the futility of tacking Canon and Nikon on their home turf of 35mm SLRs.
Water does not flow uphill, and nor do the formats used by successful mainstream camera makers.
-
Thursday I shot in my studio a model jumping high in the air. Client needed a file for a building wrap and for use in catalogue and POS banners. Shot using 6k of Elinchrom lighting at a thousands of a second on a Leaf Aptus12. No moire issues, no trouble with flash sync ant the high shutter speed. Pin sharp image at F11. Happy client and he has booked 5 weeks for next years catalogue. This is not a client that would like me to show up with a camera that cost less than a decent bicycle. Part of it might be placating a client, part of it might be creating barriers to entry to protect my market. I don't care. If leaf show up with a 120 MP camera I place the order.
Hum... I saw a 100 inch tall print made from the new 16 megapixel Fuji Pro-X1 on Saturday that looked... plain great 1m away. I don't mean just OK, I mean great. They would without any possible doubt be perfect for a building wrap.
I understand what you are saying in terms of image of the photographer and in terms of perception from the client, but I wonder if there is any connection with any real photographic need.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There might be something to this idea that to win some clients, one must impress them with expensive, high end gear: another kind of "image quality". A friend of mine is a successful real estate agent, and drives a big Mercedes sedan that is totally out of step with her personal tastes, but matches what most other succesful real estate agents drive around here, so it seems like an obligatory "dress for success" item.
Maybe there will be a market for fake DMF box props, to flash around while the client is in the room.
P. S. building wraps probably go in the same category as bill-boards as a bogus argument for high resolution, given the typically large viewing distances and inattentive viewing:
"it's not the size of the file, it's how you view it".
-
BJL, I understand what you say, but with leica and pentax launching new systems I bet canon, nikon and sony are at least watching the situation, with FF sensor packing too many pixels the only way to impess the potential d4x or 1dsIII buyer is giving something else, who is buying today a 1dsIII or a d3x?? d800 and 5dII give better result because they are new at a fraction of the price.
Maybe the way is buying a MF company and put new electronics on an "old" system.
-
BJL, I understand what you say, but with leica and pentax launching new systems I bet canon, nikon and sony are at least watching the situation ...
And are more likely laughing at the tiny revenues and profits of that sector compared to the one they are in rather than feeling any envy. And Pentax did not create a new system from scratch: it added a Kodak sensor and related electronics to its existing 645 body design and lenses, with some updates.
With FF sensor packing too many pixels ...
What is your criterion for "too many pixels"? If you mean that the vast majority of photographers do not need 39MP, or even 24MP, I tend to agree, but that just makes the case for entering the MF market even weaker. If you are referring to the idea that cameras like the D800 have "tiny, noisy pixels", that cannot compete with DMF pixels, I expect that the comparisons to DMF will show otherwise, due to the sensor technology gap that has opened between CCD and active pixel CMOS over the last decade or so.
... who is buying today a 1dsIII or a d3x?? d800 and 5dII give better result because they are new at a fraction of the price.
Indeed, we might have seen the end of the $4000+ high resolution 35mm format camera. And the new wave of models like the D800 will make the price gap to DMF even more of a reason for the market, and camera makers, to shift away from DMF rather than towards it. The highest priced, highest profit margin 35mm format models will be high speed performers like the D4 and 1DX, taking Canon and Nikon back closer to where they were with film.
-
Not convinced about the "buzz being in DSLR and not in MFDB. A few years ago, OK quite a few, you could buy a DCS465 Kodak back with the same pixel count as DCS460. Years went by and the backs went up to 16MP while the DSLR's went to around 12MP. Now we have the latest greatest DSLR which is going to be 36MP while the high end backs are 80. Seems the gap is widening to me.
DSLR has improving auto focus and high iso and not much else in my opinion. People are buying a 5D over the top Canon IDS and DS cameras even though bodies are in my opinion not up to professional standards because they are chasing MP count. Same thing will happen with the new Nikon I suspect. DSLR lenses are barely coping, to the point that pixel peepers are choosing aperture not according to what depth of field they require but what is acceptable with the sensor.
I hate that way of working. I like to choose aperture according to required depth of field and use movements on a view camera to assist when needed. When you have 80MP on hand and output is to be an A1 print you have a greater choice of apertures.
This is my drum I am banging I know but there is no competition between MFDB and DSLR. They are different beasts and always have been. I use both.
-
Not convinced about the "buzz being in DSLR and not in MFDB. A few years ago, OK quite a few, you could buy a DCS465 Kodak back with the same pixel count as DCS460. Years went by and the backs went up to 16MP while the DSLR's went to around 12MP. Now we have the latest greatest DSLR which is going to be 36MP while the high end backs are 80. Seems the gap is widening to me.
Well, at the time of the 5D, D3 backs were 22mp and DSLRs were 12 mp, currently we are at 80 vs 36, sounds fairly close to be in terms of ratio, is it not? But what is more significant is the relative positioning between these pixels numbers and the actual needs.
DSLR has improving auto focus and high iso and not much else in my opinion. People are buying a 5D over the top Canon IDS and DS cameras even though bodies are in my opinion not up to professional standards because they are chasing MP count. Same thing will happen with the new Nikon I suspect. DSLR lenses are barely coping, to the point that pixel peepers are choosing aperture not according to what depth of field they require but what is acceptable with the sensor.
The behavior you describe is only the result of the the desire to avoid diffraction which is only a measure of the size of the pixels. So you should do the same thing with your 80 mp backs as D3x users have doing with their DSLRs, meaning shoot at f7.1 if you want best quality. You deciding to shoot at f11 is the same thing as a d3x user deciding to shoot at f11, a valid artistic decision but one that doesn't fully tap in the resolution potential of your sensor.
I hate that way of working. I like to choose aperture according to required depth of field and use movements on a view camera to assist when needed. When you have 80MP on hand and output is to be an A1 print you have a greater choice of apertures.
This is my drum I am banging I know but there is no competition between MFDB and DSLR. They are different beasts and always have been. I use both.
Nobody ever claimed that the latest DSLRs were at the same level as the latest 80 backs. One thing worth considering through is that Canon probably isn't a good benchmark for how close DSLRs can be from backs. Their sensors have been significantly behind the curve for a number of years now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
and the elephant in the room is £2000 V's 'call for price'•
•here in the u.k. dealers are too embarrassed to mention the price of backs
-
Hi,
The same laws of physics apply to all formats. If you stop down you loose sharpness with MF as well as with DSLRs or a phone camera. With a larger format you need stop down more for the same DOF.
On the other hand, with larger pixels you have less to loose...
Best regards
Erik
The behavior you describe is only the result of the the desire to avoid diffraction which is only a measure of the size of the pixels. So you should do the same thing with your 80 mp backs as D3x users have doing with their DSLRs, meaning shoot at f7.1 if you want best quality. You deciding to shoot at f11 is the same thing as a d3x user deciding to shoot at f11, a valid artistic decision but one that doesn't fully tap in the resolution potential of your sensor.
Nobody ever claimed that the latest DSLRs were at the same level as the latest 80 backs. One thing worth considering through is that Canon probably isn't a good benchmark for how close DSLRs can be from backs. Their sensors have been significantly behind the curve for a number of years now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
euh...
I don't know if it's just Spain (and could well be), but it seems that we are in crisis and ultimatlely in recession. Europe is dying step by step and the gravity center of business and inovation seems to displace slowly but surely towards the asiatic side.
Time are gone here, of the rock-star photographers, illimited budgets, hollydays shooting in the Bahamas with 50 people crew. Even the big names are counting numbers. Except in this forum. You talk about those 80 MP backs as you'd talk about having your morning coffee with milk.
I don't really see for how much more time a young photographer will be interested in 50.000 bucks equipment minimum considering all the system even if it gives more room, has a better dr or whatever. Those are gear where you need to really compensate this kind of investment, and they are less and less people who are in such position.
But maybe the rest of the world is living like Midas kings and we poor and unaware people in Spain aren't representative of how wealphy this profession has become in the lastest 5 years.
The thing is that personally, if I had no reasons to count money, I'd buy today a 80MP back and mount it on a Hcam. But what happen: if 35mm is going 30-40MP with video and much more flexible workflow for 3000 bucks, what really interest me in the MF proposal is something much more powerfull, so I'm in the P65+ as minimum. Here, numbers can not be ignored any longuer.
You got the budgets and clients for those? Good for you and go for it.
-
MF definitely maintains some advantages for sufficiently demanding situations: resolution, handling of scenes of high subject brightness range when base ISO speed can be used, flash sync at all speed (with leaf shutter lenses; in particular with Hasselblad). And lens quality might always give an edge at extremes of attention to resolution, distortion and aberration.
On the other hand:
- the limits on DOF control imposed by using an aperture big enough to get the full resolution that the sensor is capable of are the same in any format (until the needed f-stop is no low that lens aberrations become a problem, but we are not at that point yet): at equal pixel count the needed f-stop scale with focal length, format size and pixel count, giving the same DOF as judged on same size prints.
- for any given IQ need, there is a shift from needing MF to being able to do the job with more convenience and lower cost with 35mm format, and even onto smaller more mainstream formats: remember when DMF was needed for anything beyond 6MP?
On the third hand: some people, maybe in particular high profile clients or stock agencies, might tend to keep raising their requirements based on what is technologically possible wit a sufficient budget, rather than what is needed.
-
MF definitely maintains some advantages for sufficiently demanding situations: resolution, handling of scenes of high subject brightness range when base ISO speed can be used, flash sync at all speed (with leaf shutter lenses; in particular with Hasselblad). And lens quality might always give an edge at extremes of attention to resolution, distortion and aberration.
On the other hand:
- the limits on DOF control imposed by using an aperture big enough to get the full resolution that the sensor is capable of are the same in any format (until the needed f-stop is no low that lens aberrations become a problem, but we are not at that point yet): at equal pixel count the needed f-stop scale with focal length, format size and pixel count, giving the same DOF as judged on same size prints.
Photography is not an object lesson in matching diffraction to pixel pitch. Dividing your sensor into smaller pixels does not actually make the image softer. DoF is limited by format size.
- for any given IQ need, there is a shift from needing MF to being able to do the job with more convenience and lower cost with 35mm format, and even onto smaller more mainstream formats: remember when DMF was needed for anything beyond 6MP?
Please define "IQ need"? Exactly what aspect if IQ are you referring to? I don't understand this statement. It appears you are saying there is a technical criteria for IQ that is fixed and defined that is somehow objectively linked to a situation.
On the third hand: some people, maybe in particular high profile clients or stock agencies, might tend to keep raising their requirements based on what is technologically possible wit a sufficient budget, rather than what is needed.
So why the interest in the D800? There are plenty of cameras now that should be sufficient for any work you need to do.
-
So why the interest in the D800? There are plenty of cameras now that should be sufficient for any work you need to do.
I do not understand this comment at all. Yes for my particular needs, there are plenty of smaller, lighter, less expensive options than a D800, but the interest should be obvious to people who want
(a) more resolution than, say, 24MP cameras offer, and
(b) a far lower system cost than any other option (DMF, LF) that offers this resolution.
And that is ignoring low light capabilities and so on relative to anything else >24MP, at any price.
And for those with a reason to use Nikon lenses, like owning a bunch of good ones, one can replace "24MP" above by "12MP", given the huge price advantage over the D3x.
-
I do not understand this comment at all.
I guess I am confused by your comments about "IQ need." It seemed to imply that there was some metric to which it could be measured with which to choose a system, but it seems, from your reply, it is simply personal preference.
-
It's pretty obvious that the image quality gap between MF and 35mm will be shrinking and that's mainly because of R&D money put to create new generations of cameras and the fact that DMF is stuck with CCD. Yes, you may say that the gap didn't change or that DMF has made the gap bigger with new 80 mp sensors, but how does it correlate with actual needs? The more MP you put in that DMF ensor, the smaller is the actual market for it- (I'm talking about professional market, not the wealthy guys which buy something simply because it's currently the best). Where's the innovation?
We are not at the point in which 35mm dslr makes a DMF camera obsolete and maybe DMF will hold it's edge, but the fact is that for >>professional use<<, the DMF market is shrinking. I know quite a lot of photogs that switched from DMF to DSLR lately and the tendency won't change- just as fredjeang mentioned, if your camera is making money for you, the costs matter. The quality/cost ratio matters even more. And DMF in most cases is an unjustified expense / luxury only very small part of the market can afford. It all boils down to what you need to earn. Does the DMF provide an edge which will help you get the client? I think a "NO" will be more and more frequent answer to this question.
I hope that MF manufacturers won't settle for hobbyist market share- but if they don't change their policy and keep coming up with 100, 120, 150, 200 mp digibacks wth higher and higher retail prices, the only market they can count on is hobbyist + a dozen of top-end artists. If that's what Phase One wants to settle for, it's pretty sad but so be it (I think Leica has already settled for market share comprised of german dentists).
As for the camera, I'm very eager to see the output of it, as I've been waiting for a long time for a DSLR camera that costs a fraction of digiback and which you can attach to Arca M-line- use it with LF lenses without looking back at results from digiback. If you don't need a humongous singleshot (I don't), you could live without a DMF at all if the DSLR is decent enough..and with no compromising on the quality!
I really hope Nikon (and soon to follow Canon 5D MKIII ) is already at that point..
-
I guess I am confused by your comments about "IQ need." It seemed to imply that there was some metric to which it could be measured with which to choose a system, but it seems, from your reply, it is simply personal preference.
Do you really not understand? Did it really not occur to you that improved resolution might be part of what I was referring to? Because resolution seems an obvious area where 35mm format offers better performance now than in years past, so that cameras like the D800 can meet resolution needs than no 35mm format camera could in the past. And it seems to be the DMF world in particular where people talk about clients demanding a TIFF of X MB, where X is some large number, which I presume is a proxy for sensor resolution. (On your comment about "some metric", of course there is no single one for IQ, and I fail to see how you could have read that into my post, but TIFF MP is one crude example from the DMF world; pixel count needs derived from some combination of PPI and print size is another that many people argue has some relevance, sometimes.) Shadow and highlight handling is another area of improvement, with formats 35mm and smaller going from CCD's with distinctly worse DR than the CCD's in DMF to comparable or better DR (per pixel, anyway).
It seems rather clear to me that in many aspects of image quality (it does not have to be all possible aspects of IQ), formats 35mm and smaller have improved over the last decade. (I would say that all formats have actually, but this is irrelevant to my point). Do you disagree? Do you thing that all the areas of improvement I mention above are of little or no significance to anyone's choice between MF and a smaller format? Because all that "my TIFF is bigger than yours" talk suggests otherwise to me, for at least a significant number of MF users and clients. Are you suggesting that the desire for some high degree of resolution is merely "personal preference", rather than ever being a professional need or a legitimate need with respect to some artistic goals?
I agree with you about diffraction and pixel pitch: if you missed it, I was only pointing out that, to the extent that the issue of diffraction limitation is an issue at all (it seems overhyped to me) the problem is no better or worse with 36MP in 35mm format than it is with 36MP in any larger format: it is just one of the burdens of seeking very high resolution images (from a single shot, to exclude focus stacking or whatever.)
-
BJL, thanks. I was just confused by your post--actually, by this whole thread as the sands keep shift. That was all.
-
Some very good answers to the points I raised, no doubt about it but still I am not convinced that DSLR is snapping at the heels of MFDB.
Address the following and I will be a little more convinced
I fairly frequently shoot at 500 and 1000 shutter speed with 2 4K packs in my studio and on location. Not easily done with DSLR. seems this is never going to be addressed with DSLR and it is a big deal
The tethering of DSLR has not improved. In fact it has gotten worse. Perhaps the Nikons are ahead on this so I could be wrong but crappy little USB 2 cables are not great in a busy studio.
Why no lens cal file system? I realize it is more needed on MFDB using movements but hell, it would help with DSLR with wide lenses falling off on the edges.
With my MFDB I set up on location shooting an interior. Pocket wizard in place, FireWire cable running to the laptop and client changes layout and we need a vertical. All I do is rotate the sensor. No camera movement at all. No cranking the tripod head over with the attendant shift in lens position. Any idea how much easier that makes life? Trust me, when on a big shoot little things make a big difference.
The back is a big cost. No it is a massive cost. Compared to lights, light shapers, stands, lenses and computers it is not so big anymore. Every three or four years I change backs and just stick the new one on the same old Cambo with its 4 apo digital lenses and the same AFI with its lenses. No worries. I get a good trade in on the old back to go with it. It seems every time I upgraded my DSLR all the lenses fell over and my lens investment became a constant source of anxiety and a bottomless pit. Figures of $50K get bandied about but a new back doesn't cost near that with the trade in and when you already have the rest of the system it is a reasonable business cost.
The back is just a part of a camera system. The camera system is just a part of studio. It's plain wrong to say that MFDB will be bought only by well heeled amateurs. That devalues the whole profession. A busy professional has a fortune invested in equipment. Look at the cost of an ArcaSwiss cube. What will 12k of studio lighting set you back? If all that makes sense as far as a capture device goes is a $3000 DSLR then your business model is weak or your market is too small or something else is wrong.
Please guys, I am not getting into an argument over these systems but as someone who has works as a photographer for over 30 years and has used digital exclusively since 1996 and has owned 5 MFDB and I forget how many DSLR I can tell you that there is a lot more to a commercial studios success than the cost of one piece of equipment.
-
Martin,
please do not misunderstand me; I am not prediction the irrelevance of MF, and I do net see anyone else in this forum doing so. I am just talking about a shift in the proportions of users from "44x33mm (or 45x30mm) and bigger" towards "36x24mm and smaller". You start of with one of several advantages for MF systems that offer leaf shutter lenses:
I fairly frequently shoot at 500 and 1000 shutter speed with 2 4K packs in my studio and on location. Not easily done with DSLR. seems this is never going to be addressed with DSLR and it is a big deal ...
And until I see evidence otherwise, my guess is that corner-to-corner control of lens aberrations can be done better in a larger format, if you pay enough for the lenses, if only because one can typically work at higher aperture ratios.
Please do not take my use of "niche" disparagingly; it just seems reasonable way to describe a sector that has always been well under 1% of the interchangeable lens digital camera market.
-
i don't think anyone would say 35mm will kill off MF that would be foolish.
I am sure that people said the same about cars vs horses, and digital vs film. Very few technologies last forever, or at least remain widely competitive and used forever.
People (amateurs and pros) will make their choices based on what they perceive as "affordable", "gets the job done" etc. If anyone perceives that this new Nikon or other 35mm cameras delivers 90% of the qualities of MF at a fraction of the price, then a lot of those people will probably go for this 35mm.
-h
-
People (amateurs and pros) will make their choices based on what they perceive as "affordable", "gets the job done" etc. If anyone perceives that this new Nikon or other 35mm cameras delivers 90% of the qualities of MF at a fraction of the price, then a lot of those people will probably go for this 35mm.
Aye, there's the rub. For in that 10% a perfectly thriving digital back market is being made. And most of the other 90% were already shooting dSLRs.
"Gets the job done" sounds a lot like "good enough" to me which seems like one of the most sure fire ways to do poorly in a crowded field (which photography is becoming more and more). For pros: there is almost always someone else who can do "good enough" at a lower price than you. And in the enthusiast market why wouldn't you want to create the very best result you can afford, especially for the enthusiasts who have the disposable income and whose time to spend on their passions are limited. When I think through all the photographers (living and dead, pro or enthusiast) whom I respect the most "good enough" is not a phrase I think any of them would use.
Most people choose a product that is "good enough" for a particular purpose. Digital backs are not for most people nor does the market/future for DBs depend on most people.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/) | RSS Feed (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
Aye, there's the rub. For in that 10% a perfectly thriving digital back market is being made. And most of the other 90% were already shooting dSLRs.
...
Most people choose a product that is "good enough" for a particular purpose. Digital backs are not for most people nor does the market/future for DBs depend on most people.
I could have said 80/20 or 99.9999/(100-99.9999), the specific number was not my point. The point was that some will find a given technology sufficient (or their wallet or employer will). I don't think it is "foolish" to suggest that 35mm will "kill off" MF in the sense that MF will be an even tinier part of the market than it is. One may or may not agree with such a statement, though.
The CD player have for all intents been "killed off" by mp3. Not because of mp3s technical superiority, but because most people cannot hear a significant difference most of the time, and the ergonomic/economic differences are too large to ignore for most of us. There probably will always be a small elite still playing their CDs on dedicated CD players, just like there still are people using a horse daily instead of cars.
-h
-
The back is just a part of a camera system. The camera system is just a part of studio. It's plain wrong to say that MFDB will be bought only by well heeled amateurs. That devalues the whole profession. A busy professional has a fortune invested in equipment. Look at the cost of an ArcaSwiss cube. What will 12k of studio lighting set you back? If all that makes sense as far as a capture device goes is a $3000 DSLR then your business model is weak or your market is too small or something else is wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the value of MFDB, but this cost argument I have a hard time dealing with.
The price difference btwn a high end DSLR and a high end back is about equal that of the car you need to move around.
Put is otherwise, it can also be the difference between the utility car you need and the high end BMW you might want.
Put it yet otherwise, had you bought Apple stock 3 years back with this difference you would now have enough cash to buy a small house.
This has to be looked at from the angle of the opportunity cost, at least this is how most business assess their expenditures.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great discussions, guys.
-
"For pros: there is almost always someone else who can do "good enough" at a lower price than you."
it's not about doing a 'good enough' job, it's about creating images that people want.
camera systems don't make good images, good photographers do and you don't always need a DMF camera to achieve this.
-
Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the value of MFDB, but this cost argument I have a hard time dealing with.
The price difference btwn a high end DSLR and a high end back is about equal that of the car you need to move around.
Put is otherwise, it can also be the difference between the utility car you need and the high end BMW you might want.
Put it yet otherwise, had you bought Apple stock 3 years back with this difference you would now have enough cash to buy a small house.
This has to be looked at from the angle of the opportunity cost, at least this is how most business assess their expenditures.
Cheers,
The high end BMW I actually dont want costs $100K in South Africa. My back cost quite a lot less than that. No taxes locally on tech items but big taxes on luxury cars. The Apple shares I didnt buy are not relevant in this argument. I am a photographer not a trader. If you are referring to opportunity costs and are using the shares as an example of that then that I will address.
There are a number of issues in this. I have a policy of constantly investing in new equipment. It is usually leased for local tax reasons. I currently have all the laptops, lights, lenses, computers, and stuff that I need. The new back which was bought when the highest res DSLR was at around 22MP was the best piece of kit around for my needs. I dont think you can possibly be in a position to assess my needs or what opportunities exist in Southern Africa that would have been a better purchase at the time. Yesterday I booked 3 shoots with a client 2 of which largely came because I can shoot such high res. Those 3 shoots are worth at least what I paid for the back.
Another issue is materiality. When you are working on a shoot that lasts 5 weeks and is worth perhaps twice what I paid for the back and involves 30 models, stylists,MUA and the rest then the cost of the back is not material.
Thirdly my clients are well heeled business owners. The back intimidates them. They own nothing like it. They are not even sure the Cambo is a camera when they first walk in. Perhaps a silly point but when they spend $50k a year, every year and have done so for a decade then it is worth something.
Anyway this has been one of the few interesting discussions on the forum from my point of view. It has been good to get other points of view. I am always up to learn new stuff relevant to my business. Just remember that my business model is working for me has has done so right through the digital revolution. Chucking out an 80 MP back to replace it with a 36 MP DSLR will be a tough sell for me and I am not about to risk it. The difference in costs over 3 years is only about $1000 a month. Not even one days work.
Thanks for the well thought out response Bernard
-
"Chucking out an 80 MP back to replace it with a 36 MP DSLR will be a tough sell for me and I am not about to risk it"
why even consider it?
surely it you can afford to own both, it's not always 100asa light in S.A. ;D
-
Thanks for the well thought out response Bernard
Thanks Martin, I understand the situation you are in and would probably take the same decisions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It will be time for another round of comparisons. Hows about putting two large prints in front of 100 photography students at a university or 100 photographers at a convention. Each one chooses #1 or #2 where either may be from the D800 or an MFDB.
What I really want to know is how fast are we approaching the point that any MFDB advantage is not big enough to show up in a 24"x36" print or lets say 'painting size'. When that point is reached buying an $80k back will seem pointless to many people that may be in the market for one.
-
MF is still sticking to a strategy to sell few cameras at high prices. This looks very similar to the Leica R story we all know.
If Hasselblad would be targetting the Mamiya price point, they would be selling much more cameras (see how much interest there is once a H3/H4 is offerend below 10k). And every camera buyer will buy 2-3 lenses in the next years.
It is not too late, but close .......
-
The lens requirements to handle 36 mexapixels of resolution are very high.
Fortunately, the MF lens makers for digital work are now up to the task. I left the FF Canon not for issues of megapixels but issues of lens quality and quality control.
But that lens quality is expensive. There are not that enough photographers who demand or require such high quality to sell larger quantities at a lower price point for an economic business in FF. So I went MF for the lenses not just the megapixels. And if you can justify the cost of such high quality lenses, the body or back cost can be justified too.
-
The lens requirements to handle 36 mexapixels of resolution are very high.
Fortunately, the MF lens makers for digital work are now up to the task. I left the FF Canon not for issues of megapixels but issues of lens quality and quality control.
But that lens quality is expensive. There are not that enough photographers who demand or require such high quality to sell larger quantities at a lower price point for an economic business in FF. So I went MF for the lenses not just the megapixels. And if you can justify the cost of such high quality lenses, the body or back cost can be justified too.
My area of expertise is in business operations/ supply chains. It will probably be a shock to many people to hear that very high quality lenses, difficult to manufacture aspheres, are generally not in the $1000s. For some perspective look at the manufacturer websites. Edmunds is the biggest. http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953 (http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405 (http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405)
Look around the site. Some stuff is expensive. Know what is and what isnt.
As you know many manufacturers get their goods made cheaper than that in China.
-
My area of expertise is in business operations/ supply chains. It will probably be a shock to many people to hear that very high quality lenses, difficult to manufacture aspheres, are generally not in the $1000s. For some perspective look at the manufacturer websites. Edmunds is the biggest. http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953 (http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=2953)
http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405 (http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=3405)
Look around the site. Some stuff is expensive. Know what is and what isnt.
As you know many manufacturers get their goods made cheaper than that in China.
Are you suggesting they are cheap? Since modern lenses can have 10+ elements, that you be about $1000 at edmund's prices (although those are small elements), and then you need all the barrel components, then you need the production line and tooling, and when you figure in tolerances and sales volumes not to mention packaging, shipping and warehousing, you can end up with an expensive product.
-
Some perspective on this idea that 36MP in 35mm format makes unprecedented challenges on lens resolution --- not for users of fine-grained monochrome film.
By my reckoning, Kodak T-MAX 100 film has distinctly higher resolution than a 36MP sensor can give (yes, even a monochrome or Foveon one), as measured by MTF 50. My reckoning is this:
- T-MAX 100 is 125 cycles/mm (lp/mm): see http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf page 14, and http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
- it takes a bit more than 2 pixels to resolve a cycle (Dr. Nyquist say so), and even more allowing for demosaicing of information from a Bayer CFA
- at a conservative 2 pixel per line pair, one would need 4 micron pixel pitch to match 125 cycles/mm
- 4 micron pixels in 36x24mm format would give 9000x6000 = 54MP.
So "Film still rules" and all that hype. And this is without playing the game of looking at extinction resolution or the Rayleigh criterion or such, which would give:
about 200 cycles/mm, <2.5 micron pixel pitch, > 14,400x9,600, > 140MP.
More seriously, this suggests that if your lenses were worth using films like Kodak T-MAX 100 with, they will not be totally embarrassed by the D800, or even the D800E.
And people even use T-MAX 100 in 4"x5": I wonder how the lenses hold up to that resolution torture?
-
Hi,
Lets put it this way: I have scanned a lot of film, and I was not impressed by negative film, except perhaps some shots a friend made on Technical Pan. Yes, negative film may resolve better on high contrast test targets, but not on low contrast detail.
I may be wrong, it's just I'm a bit skeptical.
Best regards
Erik
Some perspective on this idea that 36MP in 35mm format makes unprecedented challenges on lens resolution --- not for users of fine-grained monochrome film.
By my reckoning, Kodak T-MAX 100 film has distinctly higher resolution than a 36MP sensor can give (yes, even a monochrome or Foveon one), as measured by MTF 50. My reckoning is this:
- T-MAX 100 is 125 cycles/mm (lp/mm): see http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf page 14, and http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html
- it takes a bit more than 2 pixels to resolve a cycle (Dr. Nyquist say so), and even more allowing for demosaicing of information from a Bayer CFA
- at a conservative 2 pixel per line pair, one would need 4 micron pixel pitch to match 125 cycles/mm
- 4 micron pixels in 36x24mm format would give 9000x6000 = 54MP.
So "Film still rules" and all that hype. And this is without playing the game of looking at extinction resolution or the Rayleigh criterion or such, which would give:
about 200 cycles/mm, <2.5 micron pixel pitch, > 14,400x9,600, > 140MP.
More seriously, this suggests that if your lenses were worth using films like Kodak T-MAX 100 with, they will not be totally embarrassed by the D800, or even the D800E.
And people even use T-MAX 100 in 4"x5": I wonder how the lenses hold up to that resolution torture?
-
... I was not impressed by negative film, except perhaps some shots a friend made on Technical Pan. Yes, negative film may resolve better on high contrast test targets, but not on low contrast detail.
I was specifically using the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome film: color film (horrible stuff to scan, and lower resolution) was probably matched for resolution several sensor generations ago. At the Norm Koren page cited above, the highest MTF50 for any color film is 63 cycle/mm for Fujifilm Superia 100, and that brings my pixel count comparison down to "over 14MP", and less for Velvia. Does that fit more with your observations?
Back to the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome films: by all measures I see, T-MAX 100 has even better resolution that the famous but now discontinued Technical Pan:
Technical Pan MTF curves on page 9 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf
T-MAX 100 MFT curves on page 14 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Note that I stayed away from the "film is great" fanboyism by using MTF 50, not extinction resolution relevant only to very high contrast targets.
I meant the mainly as one way to get a reality check on the alleged inadequacy of 35mm format lens resolution. To DIY, dust of your old (Minolta?) 35mm film body, load some T-MAX 100, take some carefully focused photographs, scan carefully (or be old fashioned and print large!), and look.
-
Are you suggesting they are cheap? Since modern lenses can have 10+ elements, that you be about $1000 at edmund's prices (although those are small elements), and then you need all the barrel components, then you need the production line and tooling, and when you figure in tolerances and sales volumes not to mention packaging, shipping and warehousing, you can end up with an expensive product.
High element counts are often a kludge to keep the image quality up while zooming. Aspheres greatly reduce the number of elements required. Some companies choose many sphericals, some choose fewer, more expensive aspheres. My point is that even asphere prices are dropping significantly.
Overall in an economy progress is when people can get more out of their limited resources. Selling more and more expensive cameras is the same strategy as the Hummer brand SUV. You can do that for a while until people get bored and move on to other things. A company that wants to continue in existence probably has to look carefully at the price performance increases in 135 format like the Nikon d800. I dont even use nikon so I am not a groupie. I think its an impressive system for the money. Soon Sony and Pentax will consumerize the 36MP for less money. They wont be quite as good as the D800 they will be maybe 2/3 the price.
In a prime lens, a cooke triplet or a 4 element double gauss will give excellent APO quality for maybe $1500-2000. When people talk of lenses like designer jewellery for many thousands $ I think they have lost the plot.
IMO of course.
-
I was specifically using the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome film: color film (horrible stuff to scan, and lower resolution) was probably matched for resolution several sensor generations ago. At the Norm Koren page cited above, the highest MTF50 for any color film is 63 cycle/mm for Fujifilm Superia 100, and that brings my pixel count comparison down to "over 14MP", and less for Velvia. Does that fit more with your observations?
Back to the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome films: by all measures I see, T-MAX 100 has even better resolution that the famous but now discontinued Technical Pan:
Technical Pan MTF curves on page 9 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf
T-MAX 100 MFT curves on page 14 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Note that I stayed away from the "film is great" fanboyism by using MTF 50, not extinction resolution relevant only to very high contrast targets.
I meant the mainly as one way to get a reality check on the alleged inadequacy of 35mm format lens resolution. To DIY, dust of your old (Minolta?) 35mm film body, load some T-MAX 100, take some carefully focused photographs, scan carefully (or be old fashioned and print large!), and look.
Another way to really see what the film holds is reverse a 50mm prime or a 30mm prime. Tape the aperture open, get good backlighting on the slide and look around it. It looks great.
-
Why you always talk about so bad film like Tmax 100?
try Adox CMS 20, it is now also as 120 Film available.
I think when you done this you will never use Tmax again.
I scanned this film on a drum with 11000 dpi- no grain visible!
Tmax- if standard developed- you see grain at 3200 dpi.
Adox CMS is simply the best film ever made, known first as Gigabyte Film, but know in much better quality.
Just try this film and you all will see what film can delever. Forget Tmax, Delta, Techpan.
I will scann the film on my ICG with 12000 dpi when the scanner works again, I hope that the ICG can show the grain of this film.
-
Hi,
I was shooting TMAX 100 in 67 format, mostly. Scanning was done on a Minolta Dimage Scan multi Pro at 3200PPI. I was not really looking into MTF50, but I have measured MTF 50 on Velvia shots and came in around 2300 LW/PH for 67 against 2900 LW/PHon my Sony Alpha 900. My equipment may matter, I have a Pentax 67 with the lenses 40/4, 90/2.8, 165/2.8 and 300/4, neither lens is known to be ultimately sharp.
I did scan some TMAX 100 from 67 and was not really impressed. All testing I recently made was on color, as I never shoot BW now days.
But my message is that scanning B&W film is not really easy.
Regarding lens resolutions, I recently checked out sample images from Imaging resource on Alpha 700 (12MP), Alpha 55 (16MP) and Alpha 77 (24MP) using Imatest and found that LW/PH followed sqrt(MP) very closely, so it seem that lenses outresolve sensors. I checked the A77 for three reasons, BTW. I have it on order, it is using the smallest pitch on any DSLR and I wanted to compare it to the NEX-7.
Best regards
Erik
I was specifically using the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome film: color film (horrible stuff to scan, and lower resolution) was probably matched for resolution several sensor generations ago. At the Norm Koren page cited above, the highest MTF50 for any color film is 63 cycle/mm for Fujifilm Superia 100, and that brings my pixel count comparison down to "over 14MP", and less for Velvia. Does that fit more with your observations?
Back to the extreme case of fine-grained monochrome films: by all measures I see, T-MAX 100 has even better resolution that the famous but now discontinued Technical Pan:
Technical Pan MTF curves on page 9 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf
T-MAX 100 MFT curves on page 14 of http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Note that I stayed away from the "film is great" fanboyism by using MTF 50, not extinction resolution relevant only to very high contrast targets.
I meant the mainly as one way to get a reality check on the alleged inadequacy of 35mm format lens resolution. To DIY, dust of your old (Minolta?) 35mm film body, load some T-MAX 100, take some carefully focused photographs, scan carefully (or be old fashioned and print large!), and look.