Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: haring on April 24, 2012, 05:42:26 pm
-
Nikon D800 sells around $3000. Is it only me who thinks that it is increasingly harder to justify MF? I know it is a different look but those Nikon 50mm 1.2 manual focus lenses create some really amazing "MF like" photos....
-
To basically condense the other threads about this horrible argument:
The fact that you are comparing it to MF still is reason enough for those who need the extra power/dynamic range to stay using MF. There are niche areas of photography that require MF (ones that require a mirrorless system). If you are concerned about money and you are happy with the lenses available to small format systems..by all means sell your MF gear. Using one lens' rendition on a sensor is not enough motive to switch systems for most users.
-
Nikon D800 sells around $3000. Is it only me who thinks that it is increasingly harder to justify MF? I know it is a different look but those Nikon 50mm 1.2 manual focus lenses create some really amazing "MF like" photos....
Besides the look, there still many reasons to prefer high end MF:
- higher pixel count in one shot,
- a more optimized thetered shooting experience,
- great support from VARs,
- a more pro looking appearance that matters to some clients,
- the satisfaction of owning the best,
- potentially still a bit more DR (to be checked).
But if 35 megapixels is enough for your applications and image quality is your concern then I would at least benchmark the D800/D800e.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
had a visit from a friend with a D800, with just a kit lens on it. A few first impressions:
- very impressive, very easy to use, lots of bells and whistles, could be a great "one stop camera"
- has lots of resolution , very fast previews, good high ISO
but:
- its a heavy camera
- needs a better lens (it really stunk with the stock plasticy lens. Needs good Nikon or Zeiss glass)
- suffers all the stability issues that the MFDB cameras do - with so much resolution, it calls for stability. Its hard to hold at eye level and get that. To this end, there is a Nikon PDF on tech'l tips on how to use the camera, including info on diffraction, etc.
By the time you add good lens and deal with stability, you aren't that far away from the use pattern of a MFDB solution. Lots of people will make lots of noise sbout how great this camera is, and in many ways it is, but.... in some ways, I'm not so sure. Its a great value, but operationally, it may prove to be a bit of a challenge. Not huge, but more than one might think. You can't hold it at the eye all day long. At least I can't.
Viewfinder is OK, not great. Resolution seems fantastic, video great, preview super. Tonalitiy - hard to tell. My guess is the MFDB (Leaf for example) are better.
The real fact is that a camera with this many MP requires a certain approach and technique. Once you do that, it doesn't matter what the camera is. Its a combination of the form factor and the use pattern that governs how the camera can be used. There is no way around this. So - as a replacement for a Canon, or for having lots of pixels, wonderful. But add the lens, add the weight, add the stability, and think long and hard before you abandon MFDB. The costs aren't comparable, but the use pattern is what governs. I like the flexibility of finders, of film, of rotating sensors and the better lenses (Schneiders). If one were going to a smaller form, the S2 Leica (at 10x the price!) seems better.
In short, the D800 may well be a great camera, but use of all its performance may be harder than one first thinks.
G
-
had a visit from a friend with a D800, with just a kit lens on it. A few first impressions:
- very impressive, very easy to use, lots of bells and whistles, could be a great "one stop camera"
- has lots of resolution , very fast previews, good high ISO
but:
- its a heavy camera
Just how many MFDB have you handled??
-
Image capture either digitally or chemically is an exercise of compressing information just as music recording is an act of compressing an orchestra into a track. It can be over vinyl, tape or electronically. Then you amplify (decompress) the small source to play the loudspeakers for the experience to come closer to the original source.
MF's bigger advantage is the big sensor. Pixels are secondary. If you take a given scene (life-size) and convert it (compress it) to 41X54mm to produce a capture, you will always get better quality information about the image than compressing that scene down to 24X36mm.
Taking a picture with a high megapixel but small sensor camera is analog to listening to mp3. You can't compress so much the information without losing important bits that make the music sound natural. It becomes piercing in the high frequencies and the lows sound somehow muffled.
Digital medium format and large chunks of film will always look better than megazillion pixels in "miniature" cameras.
Imho
Eduardo
Besides the look, there still many reasons to prefer high end MF:
- higher pixel count in one shot,
- a more optimized thetered shooting experience,
- great support from VARs,
- a more pro looking appearance that matters to some clients,
- the satisfaction of owning the best,
- potentially still a bit more DR (to be checked).
But if 35 megapixels is enough for your applications and image quality is your concern then I would at least benchmark the D800/D800e.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
MF's bigger advantage is the big sensor. Pixels are secondary. If you take a given scene (life-size) and convert it (compress it) to 41X54mm to produce a capture, you will always get better quality information about the image than compressing that scene down to 24X36mm.
Taking a picture with a high megapixel but small sensor camera is analog to listening to mp3. You can't compress so much the information without losing important bits that make the music sound natural. It becomes piercing in the high frequencies and the lows sound somehow muffled.
Digital medium format and large chunks of film will always look better than megazillion pixels in "miniature" cameras.
Hum... do you have any factual data (measurements) to back up these high level theoretical claims?
We have seen again and again that sensor technology has a much larger impact on sensor performance than basic physics:
- There can be 2 stops DR gap between sensors of the same size/generation (5DIII vs D800),
- A small 4/3 sensor like that of the Olympus OM-D is superior accross the board to the full size sensor of the 1Ds,
- ...
So in the end, size is just one characteristic with the potential to impact performance, but the only thing that really matters is measured performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree with everything you say, except the heavy. To most of us here it would feel like a toy; and indeed with a 50/1.8 plastic fantastic you can drop it into a photovest pocket. These cheap series prime lenses from Nikon or Canon are called plastic fantastics because they cost nothing by MF standards, feel like cardboard, and have excellent optics, somehow. Of course Zeiss optics are deservedly respected, but the older among us may prefer lighter lenses with the benefit of AF.
The D800 I tried was incapable of accurate portrait eye focus, yet another reason why Phase/Mamiya users will feel right at home. Before I get yelled at by people with Nikon experience, let me state that I now use a D4 every day, and this focuses very well indeed.
My instinctive dislike of the D800 comes from my unpleasant feeling about its AF, and the horrible finder. Alright, the "ok, but not great" finder. I am sure there is nothing the matter with the files.
Edmund
had a visit from a friend with a D800, with just a kit lens on it. A few first impressions:
- very impressive, very easy to use, lots of bells and whistles, could be a great "one stop camera"
- has lots of resolution , very fast previews, good high ISO
but:
- its a heavy camera
- needs a better lens (it really stunk with the stock plasticy lens. Needs good Nikon or Zeiss glass)
- suffers all the stability issues that the MFDB cameras do - with so much resolution, it calls for stability. Its hard to hold at eye level and get that. To this end, there is a Nikon PDF on tech'l tips on how to use the camera, including info on diffraction, etc.
By the time you add good lens and deal with stability, you aren't that far away from the use pattern of a MFDB solution. Lots of people will make lots of noise sbout how great this camera is, and in many ways it is, but.... in some ways, I'm not so sure. Its a great value, but operationally, it may prove to be a bit of a challenge. Not huge, but more than one might think. You can't hold it at the eye all day long. At least I can't.
Viewfinder is OK, not great. Resolution seems fantastic, video great, preview super. Tonalitiy - hard to tell. My guess is the MFDB (Leaf for example) are better.
The real fact is that a camera with this many MP requires a certain approach and technique. Once you do that, it doesn't matter what the camera is. Its a combination of the form factor and the use pattern that governs how the camera can be used. There is no way around this. So - as a replacement for a Canon, or for having lots of pixels, wonderful. But add the lens, add the weight, add the stability, and think long and hard before you abandon MFDB. The costs aren't comparable, but the use pattern is what governs. I like the flexibility of finders, of film, of rotating sensors and the better lenses (Schneiders). If one were going to a smaller form, the S2 Leica (at 10x the price!) seems better.
In short, the D800 may well be a great camera, but use of all its performance may be harder than one first thinks.
G
-
Just how many MFDB have you handled??
Not sure what is meant here, but owned two, handled most of them. Prefer WLF for the reasons above. Cameras like the Contax have the same issues (perhaps that is what you meant).
to Eronald: +1.
-
Just how many MFDB have you handled??
Your comment was ill founded and contributes nothing to the thread unlike Geoff's useful comparison. I suspect the truth is you're the one here who hasn't shot MFDB - at least it appears so from your images which all have that 3::2 DSLR crop look to them. Actually that's one reason I prefer the Medium formats cameras. I find the 3:2 crop very restrictive.
-
I find the 3:2 crop very restrictive.
I think what we really need this fine morning is a format flame war.
This does have the advantage of my misplaced sense of humor (maybe I left it in my other handbag?)
I should like to champion the square format; after all on the MF forum this puts me on the side of orthodoxy.
Edmund
-
I think what we really need this fine morning is a format flame war.
This does have the advantage of my misplaced sense of humor (maybe I left it in my other handbag?)
I should like to champion the square format; after all on the MF forum this puts me on the side of orthodoxy.
I don't think any of those come close to a real long and narrow 3:1 panoramic format.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Your comment was ill founded and contributes nothing to the thread unlike Geoff's useful comparison. I suspect the truth is you're the one here who hasn't shot MFDB - at least it appears so from your images which all have that 3::2 DSLR crop look to them. Actually that's one reason I prefer the Medium formats cameras. I find the 3:2 crop very restrictive.
To be fair, John's comment made a lot of sense, and was perfectly well founded.
When evaluating the pros and cons of a D800 against a MFDB solution (which was the precise context of the discussion), to bring up the weight of the D800 as a negative (indeed the first negative point mentioned) is an odd thing to do.
Although it should be stressed that it's not the bodies themselves so much, more the addition of the back, and the heavier lenses:
645DF: 1kg.
80mm AF: 0.45kg
Digital back: .7kg (roughly?)
D800: 0.9kg
50mm f/1.8: 0.15kg
Let's be honest here though. Comparing DSLR bodies with MFDB bodies such as the Phase One DF is a bit of a joke really. The DSLR's are years ahead with regards functionality and usability for the VAST majority of users.
BTW - that's coming from someone who owns a 1D Mk IV and the Phase One AF, and to be honest - I couldn't care less about the crappy functionality of the AF in comparison to the 1D. As long as I can stick great manual lenses on the front of it, and a great back on the back of it, all I really care about is framing the shot and picking the right shutter speed.
Regards,
Gerald
-
When I wrote ill founded, my point may have been clearer to those focused only on gear if I had used the phrase "ill placed" as Geoff knows MF cameras. I was not referring to weight but to the flippant remark.
Now go back to the endless DSLR vs MFDB debate mostly driven by people who don't shoot MF.....
Besides number of pixesl, DR and other specs there are many differences that could cause a person to choose one format or the other. My solution has always been to have both.
-
Maybe the D900 will have a swivel screen like the D5100...it works quite well as a WLF with LV...
...and NO it doesn't come anywhere close to looking through the AFi's WLF or the RZ's WLF, and YES I know it costs just a bit more than 2Kgs of sugar...
-
...and NO it doesn't come anywhere close to looking through the AFi's WLF or the RZ's WLF, and YES I know it costs just a bit more than 2Kgs of sugar...
In case you have used one, how do you feel about the image quality?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Of an RZ? Absolutely amazing!
In case you have used one, how do you feel about the image quality?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In case you have used one, how do you feel about the image quality?
Cheers,
Bernard
The D5100? It's an excellent holiday/ family camera...Image quality is not bad, better than the D5000 I had before especially at high iso although not having a super zoom that is good at all focal-lengths & apertures is a major hindrance...
If I compare it to a 10 yr old Leaf Valeo 11 (11MP, 24x36mm Dalsa sensor) then I think the Valeo is better in terms of sharpness, detail, colour and DR (at low iso, obviously...). Especially sharpness and colour. Note that this is not a side-by-side comparison, this is just an observation from looking at some old files
I haven't tried the D800 yet (been busy with the Credo launch...) other than some quick snaps with horrible lighting in a trade event so I'd rather not comment until I've had more experience with it.
-
Is the D800 as good as a GFH2 in low light conditions?
For web work I sometimes use the 15Mpx GH2... and I have a set of Nikon lenses... so, in a few months' time I might pick up a D800 for a grand or so?
-
A H1, Digital Back and 50-110mm lens. That's heavy.
-
If you take a given scene (life-size) and convert it (compress it) to 41X54mm to produce a capture, you will always get better quality information about the image than compressing that scene down to 24X36mm.
...
Digital medium format and large chunks of film will always look better than megazillion pixels in "miniature" cameras.
I dont think that this makes much sense. Does a pinhole camera using a 100x100mm sensor always give "better quality information about the image" than a D800 or MFDB? I think that you should rethink your claims, or at least show us the images and/or theory that you are basing them on.
-h
-
Is the D800 as good as a GFH2 in low light conditions?
I don't know if the D800 is good enough for web work... Maybe only OK for low resolution HTML sites with no more than 256 colors palette.
And then again only for viewers with sub par vision using black&white CRTs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Besides the look, there still many reasons to prefer high end MF:
- higher pixel count in one shot,
- a more optimized thetered shooting experience,
- great support from VARs,
- a more pro looking appearance that matters to some clients,
- the satisfaction of owning the best,
- potentially still a bit more DR (to be checked).
- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
And honestly it's 6am and I haven't had my coffee yet so I imagine I'm missing quite a few.
O yeah and the look, and the image quality which, yes, is still better :-).
*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.
-
Your comment was ill founded and contributes nothing to the thread unlike Geoff's useful comparison. I suspect the truth is you're the one here who hasn't shot MFDB - at least it appears so from your images which all have that 3::2 DSLR crop look to them. Actually that's one reason I prefer the Medium formats cameras. I find the 3:2 crop very restrictive.
Referencing his comment that he found the D800 heavy. AFAIK, Hasselblad, Hy6, Mamiya, etc, etc, outweigh the Nikon by a substantial amount. No, I don't shoot MFDB, but I have years of experience shooting MF film. And I agree with you on the 3:2 aspect ratio - I intend on shooting the D800 at the newly available 5:4 ratio (if the damn thing ever gets here).
-
And honestly it's 6am and I haven't had my coffee yet so I imagine I'm missing quite a few.
O yeah and the look, and the image quality which, yes, is still better :-).
Many good points here, keep them coming! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let me try to ease this and explain the context for the "heavy" comment, which may have been misunderstood: we all agree that the D800 is lighter than the MFDB setups, significantly so. In fact, carrying MFDB setups all day is no joy, although ones with WLF (which I prefer) have an advantage here as they can be held at waist height, especially useful for those of us less young (!).
The point was rather about use of the overall package: by the time you figure the need to hold the camera up at the eye, stability and lens requirements .... the use pattern isn't that different than what is required for a MFDB. While Nikon starts with each separate aspect suggested as lighter/smaller/cheaper, etc., when considered as a whole, these things all add up. To get the most out of the D800 will likely requires a MFDB sensibility; high quality results may not be achievable with the more casual "point and shoot" technique.
The D800 is pretty attractive at its price point, and its a big sensor in an economical and integrated body. No denying that. Maybe its a 'tweener, something in between DSLR and MFDB setups, similar to the S2, which has aspects of both DSLR and MF setups (albeit at 7x pricing).
Apologies if this was ill-stated or misconstrued. Rather just trying not get swept away and look to at the larger picture.
-
A H1, Digital Back and 50-110mm lens. That's heavy.
Yes... I think my H4D-60 with the 50-110 is about 4kg
-
we all agree that the D800 is lighter than the MFDB setups, significantly so. In fact, carrying MFDB setups all day is no joy, ... To get the most out of the D800 will likely requires a MFDB sensibility; high quality results may not be achievable with the more casual "point and shoot" technique.
To get the most out of a hi-res MFDSLR you need to use flash or a tripod... so you may not be hand-holding all day... 'cept for an H4D-40 for outdoor snapshots or any with flash for fashion, theatre, dance? ¿try a monopod?
-
My cutco cheese knife sure is shitty compared to my $20 8 lb axe when it comes to chopping wood....
C'mon folks, if the d800 does a better job for you than buy it and quit whining. I'm sure most users (myself included) will end up with a d800 to complement their mfdb systems. I am also confident many people will shoot with both cameras on the same set and the clients won't be able to tell the difference. Which ever camera gets you the shot is the right one for the job.
-
I don't know if the D800 is good enough for web work... Maybe only OK for low resolution HTML sites with no more than 256 colors palette.
And then again only for viewers with sub par vision using black&white CRTs.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks, Bernard, thanks for your support...
If you use a Bayer-interpolated camera with an anti-aliasing filter, and the AA spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent 8 pixels, you need to down-res by a factor of 10 to get the best pixel quality, and then again by a factor of about 2 due to the Bayer interpolation, so, to fill a 2Mpx HD TV screen with high quality pixels from a DSLR with an AA filter you need to start with at least 40Mpx! (but I am sure many photographers will try to make do with a D800, as many web-surfers do not use 2Mpx screens).
Until you realise this, it is surprising how an HDTV picture looks better than a DSLR picture, with individual hairs clearly visible in head shots.
-
I have the D800 and about 2k images so far with it and I have a Phase IQ 160 with a Cambo tech cam with some of the best lenses around and tested the crap out of the two already. On the question seems harder to justify is really a interesting question. On some levels sure the D800 brings more resolution to the party and it really is damn good and I like it a lot but its not my 160 trust me. It really is a matter of complimenting each other more than anything else at least at my level as a working Pro. For the guy that always shot 35mm with no desire to jump in the MF arena no question it is the best 35mm cam right now when it comes to image quality. The real question here is folks that are on the fence and my e-mail and PM box is full of the same questions. The real answer here if you where going into MF than go into MF there is the MF difference and that will not go away, the D800 does get closer on a lot of levels and in some exceeds MF. Now if you went D800/E trying to get close to MF than you also better treat it like your shooting MF or you will be disappointed. This is not a P&S camera and to ekk the best out of it your going to need to up your shooting techniques and such. Just like you would in MF so for MF shooters this is already easy since that is what we have to do anyway. For 35mm only shooters time to get serious on what you are doing.( flame suit on) LOL
Not so sure this is a either/or situation but one that is based more on need and what your willing to put into it with money, time and effort. In reality if your 35mm now and want to stay in it than your golden. For the MF shooter that needs a 35mm your just as golden, it got better. End the format war, its meaningless.
-
I have the D800 and about 2k images so far with it and I have a Phase IQ 160 with a Cambo tech cam with some of the best lenses around ...
If I may ask a question that I already asked in another thread:
How many professional are moving to using both 35mm DSLR and DMF gear, but owning the former while renting the DMF if and when needed, or maybe owning some of the MF kit (like the lenses) but renting the backs?
-
Sorry,
This seems to be gravely wrong. What you are saying that you need 40MP to replace 2MP HD-camera.
Here is a screen dump from Zacuto Bigchip Video Camera shootout 2011 (part II)
Left is Arri Alexa right is a raw image from a DSLR (I don't know which, but a Canon I believe) which is sharpest? Both images are in HD-res. My impression is that the Alexa is the best HD camera today.
My personal guess is that we see awful resolution from DSLR sensors in HD because the AA-filter is optimized for the actual sensor pitch and not for HD resolution so I guess that antialiasing is done in software, and that the software is not really optimal. Downsizing 20 MP to 2MP may not be easy at 50 frames/s.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks, Bernard, thanks for your support...
If you use a Bayer-interpolated camera with an anti-aliasing filter, and the AA spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent 8 pixels, you need to down-res by a factor of 10 to get the best pixel quality, and then again by a factor of about 2 due to the Bayer interpolation, so, to fill a 2Mpx HD TV screen with high quality pixels from a DSLR with an AA filter you need to start with at least 40Mpx! (but I am sure many photographers will try to make do with a D800, as many web-surfers do not use 2Mpx screens).
Until you realise this, it is surprising how an HDTV picture looks better than a DSLR picture, with individual hairs clearly visible in head shots.
-
If I may ask a question that I already asked in another thread:
How many professional are moving to using both 35mm DSLR and DMF gear, but owning the former while renting the DMF if and when needed, or maybe owning some of the MF kit (like the lenses) but renting the backs?
Actually that is pretty much what I just did in a way was sell off my DF stuff, kept the back with the tech cam and three lenses and bought the Nikon to take on some of the DF roll. Now what I figure is when I need the high end stuff I have it in my tech cam but if I need a DSLR MF style well I can easily RENT and CHEAPLY rent the DF and a couple lenses plus I can get that overnight when a gig comes that would call for that ( that immediately put 12k into a better 35mm system). In the meantime for me the Nikon gives me that little extra boost plus gives me the 35mm little stuff that I need as well. Its called creative cheating with gear in my mind or maybe better said balancing out your system needs. I have both but I don't have to support 3 systems but 2 and can rent the other which is less costly.
Now i would bet many Pros are thinking on some of these same levels as well. Maybe depending on what they do they could rent the back when needed and hopefully pass that 600 dollar a day rental on to the client, some clients you can do this others you can not. Its hard for me to do this in my location but like NY the ad agency are used to this practice. Obviously this all depends on client, market and your needs as a a Pro but end of day we are all looking at this to save money , bill money and still walk away with workable images. Plus work at a profitable level to make our spouses happy. LOL
BTW very long thread on the D800 and also some comparisons to the IQ 160 if interested. Its a work in progress report mostly
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html
-
If you use a Bayer-interpolated camera with an anti-aliasing filter, and the AA spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent 8 pixels, you need to down-res by a factor of 10 to get the best pixel quality,
Meanwhile, actual testing by Bart van der Wolf (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=57329) in another thread here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65927.msg523733#msg523733) indicates that the AA filter reduces resolution by about 1%, so this seems (how should I phrase it?) a rather pessimistic estimate of the effects of the AA filter.
-
Guy, you just can't compare the two any more than you can compare a Canon 1D3 to a 1Dx. That an IQ160 has more IQ than a camera with 20 megapixels less resolution, um, duh? Honestly, the question should be does the D800 make it harder to justify medium format of the same resolution. That is a fairer comparison to make. Saying MF is better when comparing to an IQ160 is hardly a level playing field.
-
Guy, you just can't compare the two any more than you can compare a Canon 1D3 to a 1Dx. That an IQ160 has more IQ than a camera with 20 megapixels less resolution, um, duh? Honestly, the question should be does the D800 make it harder to justify medium format of the same resolution. That is a fairer comparison to make. Saying MF is better when comparing to an IQ160 is hardly a level playing field.
The real problem here Ben and not me but folks THINK they can compare a 36mpx 35mm cam to a 60 mpx warhorse. I know better why I have both. LOL
All I have done is show how the Nikon D800 really upped its game and that YES you can get closer to MF. Believe me if it was better I would be putting 40k back in my pocket in a heart beat but also the Nikon is the best game in town in 35mm or one of the best. Hate that word best, its like better than what.
To answer your second part of the question (D800 make it harder to justify medium format of the same resolution) the answer i still think is no it can't if you care about color, tonal range, DR and everything else MF is known for and that look that mystifies us all. Its still 35mm format photography and we keep coming back to exactly the same damn thing we always say bigger is better and it has not changed when we put a sensor in than a piece of film. Justifying it is a money issue and we all have different levels of that. I would love to put that money back in my pocket but it would not solve the quality issue, certainly make my wife one happy girl that I can tell ya. LOL
I think the real down the throat choke up question is what quality level are you willing to pay for. It ALL comes back to this question and no one has the answer except what you want. Believe me I ask myself this question what do I really need or want here. I'm in the same boat as the guy willing to spend 40k just on different sides of the ship.
-
If you use a Bayer-interpolated camera with an anti-aliasing filter, and the AA spreads the light destined for each pixel over the adjacent 8 pixels, you need to down-res by a factor of 10 to get the best pixel quality, and then again by a factor of about 2 due to the Bayer interpolation, so, to fill a 2Mpx HD TV screen with high quality pixels from a DSLR with an AA filter you need to start with at least 40Mpx!
This really is nonsense.
-h
-
It is often unwise to phrase issues as all-or-nothing questions like "is MF justified now that we have the D800?"
Instead, I am curious as to how developments in 35mm format (and in improved performance or price from DMF, but we have not seen so much of that lately) changes the use cases for medium format. That is, when is there an advantage to DMF over the D800 or D800E, and which hMF gear gives that advantage. For example, it is hard for me to see any sensor performance advantage of 22MP DMF over the D800/D800E options (yes, even in DR and tonal gradations), but other aspects like the lenses and leaf shutter lenses might still give a different and preferred look.
-
Hi,
I don't see 36 MP as a giant leap forward, it is a significant improvement above 24 MP, about 22% on a linear scale. The giant leap is that Nikon has an affordable camera above 20 MP for the first time. A larger format does have advantages. It collects more photons and the lens is less challenged regarding MTF on fine details.
On the other hand, modern (read Sony) CMOS technology greatly reduced readout noise, greatly improving image quality in the dark details.
Diglloyd has presented some real world test images comparing Leica S2 with Nikon D800, where the Nikon definitively came out on top. In other tests we may see different results.
The way I see is, DSLR technology is moving upscale. Todays DSLRs are better than 135 SLRs using film of yore, at least in my view. My experience is also that my 24 MP DSLR is on top compared with my Pentax 67 using Velvia. So DSLRs have come a long way. No question, MF digital has some areas where they are better. MF digital is moving upscale, too. Many users have replaced 4x5" film with MF digital, and the present 80MP digital backs may have made inroads in what used to be 8x10" film.
Best regards
Erik
It is often unwise to phrase issues as all-or-nothing questions like "is MF justified now that we have the D800?"
Instead, I am curious as to how developments in 35mm format (and in improved performance or price from DMF, but we have not seen so much of that lately) changes the use cases for medium format. That is, when is there an advantage to DMF over the D800 or D800E, and which hMF gear gives that advantage. For example, it is hard for me to see any sensor performance advantage of 22MP DMF over the D800/D800E options (yes, even in DR and tonal gradations), but other aspects like the lenses and leaf shutter lenses might still give a different and preferred look.
-
Meanwhile, actual testing by Bart van der Wolf (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=57329) in another thread here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65927.msg523733#msg523733) indicates that the AA filter reduces resolution by about 1%, so this seems (how should I phrase it?) a rather pessimistic estimate of the effects of the AA filter.
Sorry,
This seems to be gravely wrong. What you are saying that you need 40MP to replace 2MP HD-camera.
Here is a screen dump from Zacuto Bigchip Video Camera shootout 2011 (part II)
Left is Arri Alex right is a raw image from a DSLR (I don't know which, but a Canon I believe) which is sharpest? Both images are HD.
Best regards
Erik
On the (un-scienticic) assumption that an AA spreads the light destined for one pixel over about ten pixels, I calculated that you would need to down-sample a DSLR image by up to 20 times to get optimum per-pixel quality.
Video looks better than a still from a video, as the human eye averages and blends several frames.
¿Was it a still image from a DSLR or an image from DSLR video?
Thank you both for the info... it would seem that AA filters do not spread the light destined for one pixel over ten pixels... but, when I down-sampled pictures for the web, I was amazed how much better the Hasselblad H4D60 (studio flash) shots were than the GH2 shots (hand-held at 800 ISO).
-
The real problem here Ben and not me but folks THINK they can compare a 36mpx 35mm cam to a 60 mpx warhorse. I know better why I have both. LOL
All I have done is show how the Nikon D800 really upped its game and that YES you can get closer to MF. Believe me if it was better I would be putting 40k back in my pocket in a heart beat but also the Nikon is the best game in town in 35mm or one of the best. Hate that word best, its like better than what.
To answer your second part of the question (D800 make it harder to justify medium format of the same resolution) the answer i still think is no it can't if you care about color, tonal range, DR and everything else MF is known for and that look that mystifies us all. Its still 35mm format photography and we keep coming back to exactly the same damn thing we always say bigger is better and it has not changed when we put a sensor in than a piece of film. Justifying it is a money issue and we all have different levels of that. I would love to put that money back in my pocket but it would not solve the quality issue, certainly make my wife one happy girl that I can tell ya. LOL
I think the real down the throat choke up question is what quality level are you willing to pay for. It ALL comes back to this question and no one has the answer except what you want. Believe me I ask myself this question what do I really need or want here. I'm in the same boat as the guy willing to spend 40k just on different sides of the ship.
I always was naive Guy, didn't realise anyone would want you to make that comparison!
We're working with an Aptus II-8 now in the studio that I've set up and manage, photographing ancient manuscripts, I did suggest to the boss (guy funding it) that it does bother me that we don't have backup for when I'm flying abroad to shoot private collections, have to rely on rental if there is a problem and because we can't afford a 2nd set of MFDB gear, that the D800 although probably not as good, could well be good enough to be both backup or for use sending outside the studio with one of the photographers while the main beast is tied to the shooting stands. As good? probably not. Pretty close, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. I wouldn't have mentioned the 5D2 for that in the past, I've seen the 5D2 shooting our stuff, it ain't pretty.
We are ISO 80 tethered studio shooters with the camera bolted to a shooting table pretty much permenantly. Thank goodness, I'd hate to use this gear out in the field, on a D800 the 'close enough' at low iso and 'heck of a lot better' at higher iso would probably make me wonder whether the extra colour depth/tonality which let's be frank many pro's would have to look twice to see, is worth that slow focusing '90s camera technology with a back whose screen would disgrace a decade old p&s on the MFDB gear I have at present.
I suppose the problem is that I don't have a digital point of comparison. I know what 40 megapixels of MFDB looks like photographing hundreds of year old ink on parchment and it looks a heck of a lot better than a 5D2. I've never used the MFDB shooting stuff like portraiture or landscape where I have a frame of reference from a decade of shooting DSLR's. I'd take the Aptus out for a spin but as it's not insured off site and as I'm not the one funding this project.... :D
Have to be honest though, the camera I really want personally is a Nex 7 at the moment!
-
Hi,
The two problems with your assumptions is that that they have little founding and don't match experience.
1) It seems that AA-filters reduce image contrast just a few percent.
2) I have seen some theoretical discussion indicating that the optimal AA-filter would spread the light about 0.2 pixels. Anyway the very physical evidence I have seen is that Nikon D800 does surpass Leica S2 in the corners on a flat surface architecture surface with both camera using top of the line macro lenses at optimum aperture, Leica S2 using macro Elmar 120/2.5 and Nikon D800 using Macro Planar 100/2.0. (http://www.diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/compare-LeicaS2-mosaic.html )
On the other hand, the Zacuto tests indicate that DSLRs have lousy resolution compared to real movie cameras, I'd presume that this depends in part on the DSLRs not having optimized low pass filters for video but use software filtering instead.
Best regards
Erik
On the (un-scienticic) assumption that an AA spreads the light destined for one pixel over about ten pixels, I calculated that you would need to down-sample a DSLR image by up to 20 times to get optimum per-pixel quality.
Video looks better than a still from a video, as the human eye averages and blends several frames.
¿Was it a still image from a DSLR or an image from DSLR video?
Thank you both for the info... it would seem that AA filters do not spread the light destined for one pixel over ten pixels... but, when I down-sampled pictures for the web, I was amazed how much better the Hasselblad H4D60 (studio flash) shots were than the GH2 shots (hand-held at 800 ISO).
-
Let me try to ease this and explain the context for the "heavy" comment, which may have been misunderstood: we all agree that the D800 is lighter than the MFDB setups, significantly so. In fact, carrying MFDB setups all day is no joy, although ones with WLF (which I prefer) have an advantage here as they can be held at waist height, especially useful for those of us less young (!).
The point was rather about use of the overall package: by the time you figure the need to hold the camera up at the eye, stability and lens requirements .... the use pattern isn't that different than what is required for a MFDB. While Nikon starts with each separate aspect suggested as lighter/smaller/cheaper, etc., when considered as a whole, these things all add up. To get the most out of the D800 will likely requires a MFDB sensibility; high quality results may not be achievable with the more casual "point and shoot" technique.
Geoffrey -
Is this view based primarily on the resolution of the D800 sensor?
Would you say the same thing regarding, for example, the Canon 7D?
Regards,
Gerald.
-
Both the D800 and a medium format camera are big. Neither is particularly small:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#291,211
From the camera size site:
Nikon D800E is 6% (10 mm) narrower and 5% (6 mm) taller than Pentax 645D.
Nikon D800E is 32% (37.5 mm) thinner than Pentax 645D.
Nikon D800E [1000 g] weights 32% (480 grams) less than Pentax 645D [1480 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
I have carried my 645D around all day. I shoot with it hand held. It is just a camera. The D800 is just another camera. Neither require superhuman skill to use. Certainly you don't need to weld it to a steel post and only use 1/250s at f/11. The difficulty in shooting with MFD and the D800 are really over exaggerated.
-
From the camera size site:
Nikon D800E is 32% (37.5 mm) thinner than Pentax 645D.
That part hurts though. Together with the larger lenses, it makes a significant difference in really world packability.
In a 50/60 liters pack, you basically go from being able to store a jacket in parallel with the camera to protect it, to a situation where the camera pretty much occupies a whole layer in the pack.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In a 50/60 liters pack, you basically go from being able to store a jacket in parallel with the camera to protect it, to a situation where the camera pretty much occupies a whole layer in the pack.
Just because of that 37mm? I have a Mountainsmith lumbar pack as a camera carrier. The Nikon would not be saving me lots of space. And the difference would not prevent me from getting anywhere. Besides, the D800 needs those enormous CF cards. ;)
-
Just because of that 37mm?
No, those 37mm and the extra lenght of most lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Geoffrey -
Is this view based primarily on the resolution of the D800 sensor?
Would you say the same thing regarding, for example, the Canon 7D?
Regards,
Gerald.
The thread was moving so very nicely, I was hoping this could fade to the back.... :)
There is no simple answer to your question. Its a very slippery slope. It just seemed that the resolution of the D800 was putting the camera in direct competition with a different group of photo equipment than the 7D. The 7D seems like a very good DSLR and fits that niche nicely. We've had one around the house for a few years, and it has a lot of use with a variety of techniques, not as disciplined as the good habits one has to learn for MFDB.
It just seemed that the D800, with its big sensor, Nikon's cautionary notes on how to get the most from the camera, along with a users likely desire to "pull the most" out of it, led to this sense that this was a camera working in a different category than other DSLR's . So no, its not just resolution, but also how we manage our expectations.
-
I think it's plainly obvious to everyone that there will be a segment of the gear buying public who might have made the stretch to affording a medium format digital system that will now be perfectly happy with the D800 and the excellent system that goes with it. If you think that this isn't going to happen then I would respectfully have to say you've got your head buried in the sand.
Is it the end of medium format digital? Obviously not, for all of the well articulated arguments listed here and all over the web. If you want the very best image quality then you are simply going to have to shoot with a current generation back and digital glass. If you want the flexibility to use the same back on multiple systems then ditto. (Obviously if the D800 is 'good enough' for your needs/desires then none of this applies).
Will there be folks who are only using medium format because it WAS the only game in town to provide the image quality, resolution or colour rendering needed for their work - sure, and some of them will be reassessing whether it is the best use of resources vs a cheaper and arguably more flexible Nikon system. It happened with other formats such as LF & MF film and will doubtless happen now too.
All I know is that I can't put my Schneider or Rodie technical camera glass on the front of a D800 nor stick a D800 on the back of my Alpa (at least to shoot wides) - something VERY important to someone who shoots for personal enjoyment and not to put bread on the table. I also know that it's important to me personally to use the very best equipment that I can afford to enjoy my photography - that's just the way I am, and I know for a fact many others feel that way about personal photography and other pursuits. I could afford to put a D800 body on every one of my lenses and still have change left over vs the cost of my IQ back but it still wouldn't make using a D800 a better system - but hey, that's just for me.
Now if you're just shooting grip 'n grins, high school seniors or mass production weddings then I'm sure that it's a no-brainer that a 35mm DSLR like the D800 (and all the lenses, flash, automation etc etc) is a better choice today, at least as of April/May 2012.
(Oh, and as a long time Nikon shooter yes I ordered a D800 too :D )
-
The thread was moving so very nicely, I was hoping this could fade to the back.... :)
There is no simple answer to your question. Its a very slippery slope. It just seemed that the resolution of the D800 was putting the camera in direct competition with a different group of photo equipment than the 7D. The 7D seems like a very good DSLR and fits that niche nicely. We've had one around the house for a few years, and it has a lot of use with a variety of techniques, not as disciplined as the good habits one has to learn for MFDB.
It just seemed that the D800, with its big sensor, Nikon's cautionary notes on how to get the most from the camera, along with a users likely desire to "pull the most" out of it, led to this sense that this was a camera working in a different category than other DSLR's . So no, its not just resolution, but also how we manage our expectations.
Well the reason why I asked was because the 7D has a higher pixel density than the D800. I'm not looking to 'bash' any particular camera here - they are all capable of creating great images in the right hands.
To go back to the point you were making -
The point was rather about use of the overall package: by the time you figure the need to hold the camera up at the eye, stability and lens requirements .... the use pattern isn't that different than what is required for a MFDB. While Nikon starts with each separate aspect suggested as lighter/smaller/cheaper, etc., when considered as a whole, these things all add up. To get the most out of the D800 will likely requires a MFDB sensibility; high quality results may not be achievable with the more casual "point and shoot" technique.
For the same focal length, it's the pixel density that necessitates stability, not overall resolution. If you're comparing equivalent fields of view, then yes - larger sensors require more stability due to the longer focal lengths required compared to smaller sensors.
Example FoV at the pixel level - same focal length lens:
50mm lens on 7D - 17.8 arc-seconds/pixel.
50mm lens on D800 - 20.0 arc-seconds/pixel.
50mm lens on IQ180 - 22.3 arc-seconds/pixel.
Example FoV at the pixel level - same FoV of the image projected onto the sensor:
31mm lens on 7D - 28.4 arc-seconds/pixel
50mm lens on D800 - 20.0 arc-seconds/pixel
80mm lens on IQ180 - 13.9 arc-seconds/pixel
The lower the number of arc-seconds/pixel, the more critical stability of the system is.
Obviously an MFDB sensibility and approach will produce higher results regardless of the equipment being used :)
-
Hello,
I was just talking to the Nikon rep in New Zealand and he tells me that they have 200 orders already for the Nikon D800 and there first shipment of 12 arrived today.
I think that is a very good indication of how popular this camera is.
If Nikon don’t announce a Nikon D4x soon I will buy a Nikon D800 and D800E camera with MB-D12 battery packs to replace my Nikon D3X.
Then I will put my Mamiya 645AF kit up for sale and use my Leaf Aptus 75 on my Mamiya RZ system which I would never part with.
Cheers
Simon
-
Hi,
If your technique is perfect than you'll be OK with any system. If your technique is less than perfect why care about having the best lenses and the most megapixels?
Best regards
Erik
Well the reason why I asked was because the 7D has a higher pixel density than the D800. I'm not looking to 'bash' any particular camera here - they are all capable of creating great images in the right hands.
To go back to the point you were making -
For the same focal length, it's the pixel density that necessitates stability, not overall resolution. If you're comparing equivalent fields of view, then yes - larger sensors require more stability due to the longer focal lengths required compared to smaller sensors.
Example FoV at the pixel level - same focal length lens:
50mm lens on 7D - 17.8 arc-seconds/pixel.
50mm lens on D800 - 20.0 arc-seconds/pixel.
50mm lens on IQ180 - 22.3 arc-seconds/pixel.
Example FoV at the pixel level - same FoV of the image projected onto the sensor:
31mm lens on 7D - 28.4 arc-seconds/pixel
50mm lens on D800 - 20.0 arc-seconds/pixel
80mm lens on IQ180 - 13.9 arc-seconds/pixel
The lower the number of arc-seconds/pixel, the more critical stability of the system is.
Obviously an MFDB sensibility and approach will produce higher results regardless of the equipment being used :)
-
That part hurts though. Together with the larger lenses, it makes a significant difference in really world packability.
In a 50/60 liters pack, you basically go from being able to store a jacket in parallel with the camera to protect it, to a situation where the camera pretty much occupies a whole layer in the pack.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard:
The Pentax 645 lenses are not much larger, and are in some cases smaller, albeit slower. When I considered buying a D3x, I looked at the Nikon lens offerings and a weakness is an absence of slower, lighter and smaller lenses in the focal lengths I wanted. For example the 70-200 zoom is only available as the huge f/2.8 version (1540g, 209x85mm). There is no exact equivalent for the 645D, but the 80-160 FA (1010g, 85x136mm) and 150-300 FA (920g, 132x198mm) are both lighter and shorter. Nikon offers only an f/2.8 at 400mm (4600g) vs the 645 f/5.6 400mm (1260g)! Yes the lenses are slower, but that is a small price to pay for the lower weight. Canon has much better offerings for my purposes, but they didn’t have the D3x and now the D800. :)
Tom
-
For the same focal length, it's the pixel density that necessitates stability, not overall resolution.
I agree with the fact, but see no practical relevance: the only comparisons that make sense to me are formequal compositions, with equal angular FOV, amd then it is angular resolution that matters, as in your secodn set of numbers. That is because a given amount of camera or subject movement will produce a given amount of angular shift of the scene framing, so the effect will be similar with a 50 mm lens on a Canon EF-S camera with its "1.6x format factor" and 5 micron pixels as with an 80mm lens on a 35mm format camera with 8 micron pixels (and so the same pixel count on the same subject framing.)
And the angular resolution you get of a particular composition is measured, roughly! by pixel count. For example, the traditional minimum shutter speed guideline of "1/f" need to be scaled inversely with increase in linear pixel count, or better, by resolution in lines per picture height.
-
No, those 37mm and the extra lenght of most lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
As Tom pointed out, only if you cherry pick your facts. The point is, the large 35mm DSLRs today (the D800 is no Nikon FM) are large cameras. The difference between that and a MFD camera is not so great to be really significant.
This is not a case of which is "better," but exaggerating the differences is not really useful.
-
As Tom pointed out, only if you cherry pick your facts. The point is, the large 35mm DSLRs today (the D800 is no Nikon FM) are large cameras. The difference between that and a MFD camera is not so great to be really significant.
This is not a case of which is "better," but exaggerating the differences is not really useful.
One issue and I know I have done this for years is you wind up having more 35mm lenses in your bag over having a DF kit which got to 4 lenses tops. The Nikon kit I have right now is 5 and looking for 6 so total bag weight and space is really a toss up. I certainly would not buy a Nikon thinking its smaller and lighter , just go pick up a 24-70 lens from either Canon or Nikon and its bigger and heavier than any DF lens I had except the 300 mm of course. Now MF cameras are more boxy style than 35mm but a D4 for instance is no small camera either just a different shape.
-
As Tom pointed out, only if you cherry pick your facts. The point is, the large 35mm DSLRs today (the D800 is no Nikon FM) are large cameras. The difference between that and a MFD camera is not so great to be really significant.
This is not a case of which is "better," but exaggerating the differences is not really useful.
It goes both ways... there are 35mm lenses that are compact also. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It goes both ways... there are 35mm lenses that are compact also. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Very true but my bottom line is what I have to put on this 55 year old back so it really comes down to what's the bag weigh in total more than anything at least for me. LOL
Now I will totally admit a DF with back and 110 for instance shooting handheld there simply is not a lot of joy in that after awhile either. Some of this is just not fun.
-
Hi,
Me 56 years and the bag is 14.5kg (around 32 lb). It's just 135. A Sony Alpha 900 and a 77SLT plus a couple of lenses, a tripod and a pair of heads ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Very true but my bottom line is what I have to put on this 55 year old back so it really comes down to what's the bag weigh in total more than anything at least for me. LOL
Now I will totally admit a DF with back and 110 for instance shooting handheld there simply is not a lot of joy in that after awhile either. Some of this is just not fun.
-
No, I'm afraid I don't. It is based on educated guesses and 35 years as a professional photographer. Theoretically, due to it's micro grain structure 120 Technical Pan had in essence the power to compete for detail and drawing power with 4X5 cut sheet. but didn't. Even Tri-X 4X5 dusted any fine grain 120 roll-film, even TP. (if grain structure is analog to pixels).
I recall how digital MF users not long ago defended the format claiming the 16-bit advantage, the superior quality of the pixels of the CCD over CMOS and the finer lenses. Now, we know, the 16-bit was in reality only 14-bit. DSLR sensor manufacturers have developed 14-bit sensors than on any test-bench beat the quality of any MF sensor. Canon, Nikon and Leica have now amazing new lenses that trump even the finest large or medium format glass. All the advantages that DMF had over D35 have fallen, except one. The size of the sensor.
If cramming more pixels was the answer for quality and drawing power, then in 10 more years a cell-phone will have the drawing power of an IQ180 back. I believe this will never happen. In other forums, APS advocates have this campaign of negating the advantage of FF cameras. Now we see the same thing with M43 users claiming there are no advantages of APS over M43. And this can go all the way down to reducing the sensors beyond the human scale.
DMF sensors still provide the best IQ and will keep this superiority. As long as someone keeps on producing them, bigger sensor cameras will always rule the non plus ultra of photographic image quality. However, their nemesis could be the popularity of the FF DSLR. DSLR Manufacturers enjoy 1000X more revenues than DMF makers. Practically all the money for RD goes for smaller sensors. In no time I believe, FF will have so much quality that going for bigger sensors will be only a matter of obsession. In fact we might be there now.
Being a true lover of medium format myself for years, I salivated for a decade for a DMF back but couldn't afford it. In the meantime DSLR systems matured enough to challenge the DMF superiority. I stop dreaming of getting into DMF. My Canon system is turning into a dream system. Nikon and Leica systems are dream systems too and soon Sony too. Maybe one day, DMF cameras will not be sold in enough quantities to justify production. I truly hope this never happens. I dream for a technological breakthrough that will allow getting into DMF without mortgaging one's life.
It is only now left to our eyes. Either see it or don't. I for myself, can usually tell the difference even over the internet. Will I sell my soul to the devil? No way!
Best
Eduardo
Hum... do you have any factual data (measurements) to back up these high level theoretical claims?
We have seen again and again that sensor technology has a much larger impact on sensor performance than basic physics:
- There can be 2 stops DR gap between sensors of the same size/generation (5DIII vs D800),
- A small 4/3 sensor like that of the Olympus OM-D is superior accross the board to the full size sensor of the 1Ds,
- ...
So in the end, size is just one characteristic with the potential to impact performance, but the only thing that really matters is measured performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, I'm afraid I don't. It is based on educated guesses and 35 years as a professional photographer.
I respect the skilled photographers abilities to make great photography, just like I respect the great musicians abilities to make great music.
I don't think that being a skilled photographer in itself makes you an authority on camera technology, anymore than being a great piano player makes you able to analyze the details in how the 8000 (?) moving and sound-generating parts in a piano affects the sound.
DMF sensors still provide the best IQ and will keep this superiority. As long as someone keeps on producing them, bigger sensor cameras will always rule the non plus ultra of photographic image quality.
I dont think that MF necessarily will give you the "best" IQ for every kind of photography, and I certainly would not bet on it being best for all kinds of photography for all future. Like you say, it depends on how much R&D effort is put into the format.
-h
-
Since everyone is putting their 2 cents in, I am going to put my too. I shoot both MF and DSLR, there is camera for every style of shoot. I do have a D800e on backorder and I do shoot with the Mamiya 645 with the Leaf Aptus II 12 and yes I do carry the Mamiya 645 with 5 lens with the Leaf II 12 back. And I am 63 years old. One thing that the DSLR have on the MF is that, the widest lens for the Mamiya is 28mm. With the Nikon, it is 14mm. I do shoot wide angles for landscape and special effects.
-
Hi,
Me 56 years and the bag is 14.5kg (around 32 lb). It's just 135. A Sony Alpha 900 and a 77SLT plus a couple of lenses, a tripod and a pair of heads ;-)
Best regards
Erik
I am glad I am 48. My bag with the 645D, 35mm, 55mm, 120mm, and 300mm with a bunch of other stuff is 6.5kg. The tripod is 2kg more. No wonder I am so weak and feeble--I need to carry more stuff. ;)
-
Since everyone is putting their 2 cents in, I am going to put my too. I shoot both MF and DSLR, there is camera for every style of shoot. I do have a D800e on backorder and I do shoot with the Mamiya 645 with the Leaf Aptus II 12 and yes I do carry the Mamiya 645 with 5 lens with the Leaf II 12 back. And I am 63 years old. One thing that the DSLR have on the MF is that, the widest lens for the Mamiya is 28mm. With the Nikon, it is 14mm. I do shoot wide angles for landscape and special effects.
Lester isn't it closer than that, as the FOV of your 28mm in medium format is equivalent to around 17mm in 35mm format if you are using a digital back without a crop factor.
I agree the weight adds up fast. I am always trying to cut back depending on the hike I have. At 53, my back just doesn't have what it used to anymore.
Paul
-
Lester isn't it closer than that, as the FOV of your 28mm in medium format is equivalent to around 17mm in 35mm format if you are using a digital back without a crop factor.
I agree the weight adds up fast. I am always trying to cut back depending on the hike I have. At 53, my back just doesn't have what it used to anymore.
Paul
It is indeed 18mm (on say, P65+/IQ160/180, etc).
Steve Hendrix
-
Wait until you live to 63, the older you get, the worst things are.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk&sns=em
-
I never implied that I was an "authority". Perhaps you are one. If so, will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?
Eduardo
P.S. Maybe I just got lost in translation when I did my (then) mandatory reading of Ansel Adams little books.
I respect the skilled photographers abilities to make great photography, just like I respect the great musicians abilities to make great music.
I don't think that being a skilled photographer in itself makes you an authority on camera technology, anymore than being a great piano player makes you able to analyze the details in how the 8000 (?) moving and sound-generating parts in a piano affects the sound.I dont think that MF necessarily will give you the "best" IQ for every kind of photography, and I certainly would not bet on it being best for all kinds of photography for all future. Like you say, it depends on how much R&D effort is put into the format.
-h
-
I never implied that I was an "authority". Perhaps you are one.
I know some technology, and I do some photography. I am an authority on none of them.
If so, will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?
Having 180MP obviously _can_ give you more details than having 20MP if a single shot is taken.
I have seen images that appeal to me coming from a large variety of camera/lenses. Usually, it seems that a clever photographer will see interesting motifs and be able to work around the limitations of any given camera.
If you are talking about "fair" side-by-side comparisions of digital MF vs 24x36mm that clearly shows a significant advantage besides spatial resolution, I have seen none that really struck me. Granted, it is fairly complicated to make such a test really "fair", and to investigate what fairness constitutes.
-h
-
... will you please explain the reasons why MF sensors still deliver better IQ despite everything else is matched and even surpassed by smaller formats?
Can you explain your criteria for this judgement of MF sensor delivering superior image quality?
The blanket claim of MF having superior image quality is not true: compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.
I agree that if the sensor technologies are sufficiently close, the larger format has a natural advantage, such is in the resolution of the final print (equal lp/mm in the image formed on the sensor give more lp/mm on the MF print) and the total light that can be gathered which leads to greater dynamic range and so finer tonal gradations and superior handling of scenes of high subject brightness range.
But recently, the sensor technologies are not even close: for photosites of equal size, the best CMOS sensors give far better "per pixel" performance, which MF can overcome only by having substantially more and/or larger photosites, requiring substantially more sensor area. I do not think that 44x33mm or Leica's 45x30mm have enough size advantage to overcome the current technological disadvantage on "per area" performance.
On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.
-
in answer to the OP it does make it harder to justify MFD as a fellow photographer has just ordered an 800e and has shelved the idea of paying 20k for an 'upgrade' from a p45 that isn't really justifiable. if the p45 somehow dies it will be replaced with a s/h one or a s/h H3d-39 which are quite cheap at the moment. from his point of view he gets a studio back-up and a location camera that means faster working, less lighting kit, reliable shooting to card, proper live view and the ability to shoot above 50asa. all for the price of a H/blad zoom lens.
-
I am going to sell my P25+ for a Nex 7. Same resolution and better sensor.
-
... compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.
...On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.
In the real world, for shots requiring high resolution in the studio or for architecture/landscape... how would a D800 file compare to an up-sampled file from a 5 year old 22Mpx digital back?
... or a 5 year old 22Mpx multi-shot back that might cost the same money?
I do have a GH2 for low-light work, and the small sensor size gives greater DOF when DOF stacking is not an option.
-
I am going to sell my P25+ for a Nex 7. Same resolution and better sensor.
You are being obtuse right? The big pixel size difference there is likely more than enough for the sensor of the P25+ to off-set the technological inferiority of CCDs, which show up when pixel sizes are closer to equal, and the far larger format also allows the lenses to be superior on equal sized prints and in "lines per picture height" performance measures, even though they might measure a bit worse in "line per mm" scale.
(A little known fact: with equal lens designs of equal angular FOV and equal minimum f-stop scaled to different sizes, a smaller format version is inherently superior in the l/mm sense, due to the way that spherical aberrations and such scale with size, but the larger version is inherently superior on the more relevant measure of l/ph, and when stopped down for equal DOF and such.)
-
In the real world, for shots requiring high resolution in the studio or for architecture/landscape... how would a D800 file compare to an up-sampled file from a 5 year old 22Mpx digital back?
... or a 5 year old 22Mpx multi-shot back that might cost the same money?
Upsampling is not going to fix the resolution disadvantage at all, just hide the jaggies in big prints. But on other aspects of IQ, I really do not know: for example, the 22MP sensor seem to have plenty of DR for almost all needs and the MF lenses probably have an IQ advantage.
As to the multi-shot back I have even less of a clue how the comparison would go! It might overcome the resolution disadvantage.
That would be an interesting comparison, especially as it reduces or even reverses the price disadvantage for someone who already has the rest of the MF kit and just need the second hand back.
-
You are being obtuse right?
Definitely obtuse. You mean sensor size makes a difference? I just thought it was all about pixels. (This is rhetorical obtusity, BTW.)
BJL, I know you understand.
I can't remember, when the 24MP 25mm sensors came out, did the conversations keep going around and around like this? A photographic system is a symphony (or cacophony) of parts, all contributing to the final result. There are situations where some of those parts intersect, but every system makes a unique result. I recommend choosing a format for what it gives rather than choosing it for what another format gives.
What did we talk about before the D800...
-
What did we talk about before the D800...
IIRC correctly, the previous hot topic in internet fantasy photography was "Canon vs Nikon: which has more pleasing pattern noise at ISO 204,800?"
So compared to that, I think we are making progress in our therapy support group for the spec. obsessed.
-
LOL
-
My criteria is undoubtably made of limited sources and resources. Based on some "in-situ" visual comparisons and from some other professionals that heavily use on a daily basis MF equipment as well as dlsr's.
If I'm not lost in translation, what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.
This is a shake-up, turn up-side-down world thing for every user of a DMF system. Are you sure?
On the other hand, you mention that with sensors approaching true 645 size, the advantage is because of the lenses. It is my belief the true advantage is the sheer size of the sensor in the first place. If lenses add to the equation it is because of the big image circle they produce, which in turn comes back to the sensor. The size of the sensor.
Eduardo
Can you explain your criteria for this judgement of MF sensor delivering superior image quality?
The blanket claim of MF having superior image quality is not true: compared to the D800(E), some MF backs are superior in some respects (for example, resolution or detail from a 50MP+ back) but all current MF options are inferior in other aspects of IQ, like handling of low light when high exposure index ("ISO speed") is needed.
I agree that if the sensor technologies are sufficiently close, the larger format has a natural advantage, such is in the resolution of the final print (equal lp/mm in the image formed on the sensor give more lp/mm on the MF print) and the total light that can be gathered which leads to greater dynamic range and so finer tonal gradations and superior handling of scenes of high subject brightness range.
But recently, the sensor technologies are not even close: for photosites of equal size, the best CMOS sensors give far better "per pixel" performance, which MF can overcome only by having substantially more and/or larger photosites, requiring substantially more sensor area. I do not think that 44x33mm or Leica's 45x30mm have enough size advantage to overcome the current technological disadvantage on "per area" performance.
On the other hand, there is at least one area where formats close to the full 54x42mm of 645 format might always have an advantage due to lens optics: the natural size advantage of larger formats lenses means that the best 645 format lenses might deliver an image of superior quality to what any 35mm format lens can deliver, and with good enough sensors, this could be better than 35mm lenses could achieve even with an ideal sensor.
-
Hi,
Modern CMOS sensors perform best at base ISO, which is normally the lowest one. In this sense they are very similar to MF sensors. The difference is that MF sensors have much more shadow noise (technically called readout noise). The shadow noise in MF sensors is almost a magnitude higher than in the latest CMOS. The low readout noise is the reason D800 reigns in DR.
There are a lot of factors for the playing field not be level:
1) MF sensors are bigger that is good for MTF
2) MF sensors may have different CGA (Color Grid Arrays) designs
3) MF lenses may be "better" than lenses normally used on DSLRs
4) MF backs are often used with proprietary software
The way I see it:
If you start from scratch a Nikon D800 with a couple of decent lenses will give you the same image quality as a low end MF system at 25% of the price. If you already have a decent MF system, a low end MF back may be a natural option.
I have seen a well executed comparison on Diglloyd between Nikon D800 and a Leica S2 using some of the best lenses available, and in my view the Nikon came out on top. (Corners were much better on Nikon, while Leica S2 may have been slightly better near the center. Leica S2 had a lot of Moiré.)
The comparison on Diglloyd was based on a single image, but was carefully executed, with focus bracketing on the Leica, the best series of images rom five sets were used.
Best regards
Erik
If I'm not lost in translation, what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.
Eduardo
-
Upsampling is not going to fix the resolution disadvantage at all, just hide the jaggies in big prints...
As to the multi-shot back I have even less of a clue how the comparison would go! It might overcome the resolution disadvantage.
That would be an interesting comparison, especially as it reduces or even reverses the price disadvantage for someone who already has the rest of the MF kit and just need the second hand back.
Pixel count is not the same thing as resolution... does a quality 22 Mpx (multi-shot) back (up-sampled) resolve more detail than a D800?
You can up-sample quality (MF) files, but you can normally down-sample ff files without loss of detail?
...and a good non-retro lens helps as well, of course.
-
Pixel count is not the same thing as resolution...
No, but pixel count does limit resolution though: my comment was that an image from a normal (not multishot) 22MP back has less resolution that given by a D800(E) with good enough lenses, and up-sampling will not overcome that.
-
My criteria is undoubtably made of limited sources and resources. Based on some "in-situ" visual comparisons and from some other professionals that heavily use on a daily basis MF equipment as well as dlsr's.
Unless those professionals and their work that you are judging already include experience with the D800(E), such comparisons are not relevant to this thread. More so if the 35mm format cameras in the comparisons are Canon rather than Nikon or Sony, because of factors like the lower maximum dynamic range of Canon's sensors.
... what you are saying is that basically the D800 equals or betters DMF backs this side of 48X36mm. As far as I understand, only at high iso's this happens.
This is a shake-up, turn up-side-down world thing for every user of a DMF system.
I am saying, based for example on comparisons to the Leica S2 with its 45x30mm sensor, that the D800 has about matched or passed those smaller "medium formats", and not just at high ISO speeds. Let me say yet again that the per pixel performace of the D800 sensor now surpasses that of the CCDs use in larger formats at base ISO speed too. And my claim about formats like 44x33mm does not turn the world upside down for users of formats 48x36mm or larger, so I do not understand your claim about "every user of a DMF system".
On the other hand, you mention that with sensors approaching true 645 size, the advantage is because of the lenses. It is my belief the true advantage is the sheer size of the sensor in the first place.
You cannot isolate the sensor from the lenses: the sensor can at best record perfectly the image delivered to it by the lens, so the inherent advantage of larger format lenses is something that smaller sensors might never be able to overcome completely. And how many times to I have to repeat: yes, if the larger formats used sensors that roughly matched the intrinsic technical capabilities of modern CMOS sensors, then of course the sensors would be capable of greater image quality as soon as the format is just modestly larger, like 44x33mm ... But those CCDs no longer come close to being intrinsically as good as the best current CMOS sensor technology, evan at low ISO speeds, so only a substantial size advantage can overcome that.
-
Just by reading your post I'm reading your mind that, it's obvious you prefer 35mm FF to the 1.5x or even smaller cropped format..
How did you justify the larger sensor on the 35mm FF to the cropped format?
-
Just by reading your post I'm reading your mind that, it's obvious you prefer 35mm FF to the 1.5x or even smaller cropped format..
How did you justify the larger sensor on the 35mm FF to the cropped format?
To whom was this question addressed?
Note: 35mm format sensors offer the same CMOS technology as in smaller format cameras of the same brand, whereas sensors larger than 35mm format used very different (and by now, significantly inferior) CCD technology. This means that comparisons of current options between MF and 35mm are quite different than comparisons between 35mm and smaller formats.
-
I thought the discussion was on the MF vs. D800. I read some comments questioning the value of MF's larger sensor.
But never mind, you have your point.
-
... the inherent advantage of larger format lenses is something that smaller sensors might never be able to overcome completely...
Hi, I'm lurking here mostly, trying to understand and learn...
Could anyone please elaborate a bit on the inherent advantage of larger format lenses?
Is this about resolving power, character, rendition?
BTW, here's another comparison D800E-S2:
http://blog.mingthein.com/category/leica/ (http://blog.mingthein.com/category/leica/)
-
It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo
so I do not understand your claim about "every user of a DMF system".
-
It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo
?
What about those of us shooting 44x33?
-
IMHO the (negative) influence of the D800 (and the influx of used 645D once the 645D2 will become a reality in less than a year) will be tremendous in the way of disrupting the "update chain" that MF companies use as a business model today (and have used it for a lot more in the digital age). To the point it will be much harder for a lot of people to justify an initial 4K to 7K investment into a first foray in the MF world by buying an used camera + an older back considering they will have the option to chose either a new D800 or a (probably not very used) 645D for the same amount. Of course there will still be some people who will do it and find a compelling reason based on their needs but all in all compared with a couple of years a go the competition in this price bracket will be fierce.
It also will be much more problematic to move used 40Mp cameras/backs of today (like H4D, or P1&Leaf backs) when they will face the new 645D2 at similar prices and (from what I heard) with many more features and advantages. Further more the Pentax as a DMF system will reduce some of today's drawbacks (like tethering, fewer new digital lenses) to become even more appealing to some.
In a phrase this situation means less opportunities for current DMF users (at all levels except the very high end) of "traditional brands" to upgrade their current gear at reasonable prices thus fewer sales of new gear for those companies. Or if the dealers will continue to use the same upgrade patterns of today they will transfer the financial burden of slower moving gear to themselves.
BR,
Radu
-
It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter.
Eduardo
Maybe but not necessarily. For one thing, the gap in sensor performance might not grow much more: the best CMOS sensors now seem to be fairly close to theoretical limits on maximum sensitivty (for a CFA sensor) and low dark noise. Also, with full 645 format of 56x42mm (which is larger than 36x24 by about 75% linear, compared to only a 28% size advantage for 44x33), the inherent advantages in the quality of the images from a larger sensor (like resolution about 75% greater from the same basic lens design scaled up) might mean that good 645 lenses with CCD sensors keep an advantage over 35mm format lenses even with a perfect sensor.
In fact, I am sure that some people believe that even 44x33 and 45x30 is big enough that the inherent advantages of the lenses keep those formats ahead in IQ, but the recent comparisons between Nikon D800 and Leica S2 suggest that the 25% size gap is not enough.
EDIT: another point in favor of larger formats that I overlooked. Even if dynamic range is better for a smaler CMOS sensor, that only relates to how much noise is seen in deep shadows (and with severe underwxposure ofmtue sensor, meaning at higher ISO settings.) When instead you look at fairly well lit parts, maybe all the normal printable range from the highlights down to three or four stops below midtones, the dark noise used in DR measurements is overwhelmed by photon shot noise, and looking at just that shot noise, a larger sensor that counts more total photons has an advantage in signal-to-noise ratio. This perhaps relates to the finer, smoother tonal gradations often claimed for MF in comparison to 35mm format.
-
The MF guys wrecked their own market by combining predatory pricing with underperforming camera bodies. In the end, interestingly, the worst camera with the highest dealer margins is the one which is selling (Mamiya) while the best (Sinar) went down the chutes. So pick today's worst MF product: That will be the last man standing.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I think it is more complex than just a few factors. The obvious factor are:
- Noise as you said a bigger sensor surface collects more photons, leading to less shot noise
- MTF, any feature on a MF sensor will be larger assuming same FOV (Field of View) so MTF will be higher
Now, the less obvious factors
Are MF lenses better? Maybe, or may be not. It is probably easier to build a good 135 lens than to build an MF lens. With SLR designs the mirror assembly requires telecentric designs on short focal lengths. More symmetrical designs may have better corner performance, but we get problems with excessive lens cast.
DSLRs are usually used with zooms and MF more often with prime lenses.
What I would expect?
Well, it seems there is a market for low end MF digital, like 22-25 MP backs. I'm not sure people are buying them for image quality.
For the midfield, Pentax 645D and the Leica-S2 and others I would presume that the Nikon D800/D800E is a real competition. I guess that its is practical people buying the 645D and it is a fine camera. It lacks Live View for critical work. It's a hard to ignore fact that you can buy two D800/D800E bodies and a bunch of very fine lenses from Nikon and Zeiss just for the price of the 645D body.
Leica S2 is a different thing. It has a red dot and awesome lenses, but it still lacks live view.
Than we have a high end like Phase One IQ180. These make a lot of sense if you have the money and the knowledge how to drive them.
In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years). Perhaps a Nikon D4X. Will the lenses keep up? Good question. The best primes are good for 50MP FX but most zooms will have bad corners.
Finally, I think that MF digital needs live view badly.
Best regards
Erik
Maybe but not necessarily. For one thing, the gap in sensor performance might not grow much more: the best CMOS sensors now seem to be fairly close to theoretical limits on maximum sensitivty (for a CFA sensor) and low dark noise. Also, with full 645 format of 56x42mm (which is larger than 36x24 by about 75% linear, compared to only a 28% size advantage for 44x33), the inherent advantages in the quality of the images from a larger sensor (like resolution about 75% greater from the same basic lens design scaled up) might mean that good 645 lenses with CCD sensors keep an advantage over 35mm format lenses even with a perfect sensor.
In fact, I am sure that some people believe that even 44x33 and 45x30 is big enough that the inherent advantages of the lenses keep those formats ahead in IQ, but the recent comparisons between Nikon D800 and Leica S2 suggest that the 25% size gap is not enough.
EDIT: another point in favor of larger formats that I overlooked. Even if dynamic range is better for a smaler CMOS sensor, that only relates to how much noise is seen in deep shadows (and with severe underwxposure ofmtue sensor, meaning at higher ISO settings.) When instead you look at fairly well lit parts, maybe all the normal printable range from the highlights down to three or four stops below midtones, the dark noise used in DR measurements is overwhelmed by photon shot noise, and looking at just that shot noise, a larger sensor that counts more total photons has an advantage in signal-to-noise ratio. This perhaps relates to the finer, smoother tonal gradations often claimed for MF in comparison to 35mm format.
-
In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years). Perhaps a Nikon D4X. Will the lenses keep up? Good question. The best primes are good for 50MP FX but most zooms will have bad corners.
I dont think that being lense-limited need to be such a bad thing.
I have a couple of good lenses, and if I could be reasonably certain that my camera was able to record, accurately, every piece of information that it could offer, it would give DXO and similar packages optimal working conditions.
-h
-
Are MF lenses better? Maybe, or may be not. It is probably easier to build a good 135 lens than to build an MF lens. With SLR designs the mirror assembly requires telecentric designs on short focal lengths. More symmetrical designs may have better corner performance, but we get problems with excessive lens cast.
I'd say that yes if you go to the Rodenstock Digaron and Schneider Digitar lenses it is clearly superior for what they can do, i e tilt and shift from wide to short tele. Lens cast on Dalsa chips without microlenses is not bad at all, problem is that SLR cameras sell better (which need better sensitivity) so now all high-end MF backs have microlenses and cannot handle lens cast of the wides as well, the retrofocus digarons perform ok with them though so lenses do exist but you need to pay more (retrofocus is more expensive designs).
I see the D800 as more of a threat to low end MF DSLRs (pentax etc) than to technical cameras. Nikon's PC-E lenses are okay, but not more than that, at least the 24 from what I have seen so far. A camera is more than just the sensor.
I agree that live view would be really nice. Ground glass which I use is ok (better than its reputation I'd say), but makes the camera much more expensive and heavy (due to the high precision sliding back).
-
In my view the Nikon is D800 is not the ultimate camera. We already have 24 MP sensors in APS-C, and they are just doing fine. I'm pretty sure we will see 50MP full frames in a couple of years).
Not, it is not, but the question is whether it has to be or not?
- In terms of resolution, who needs more than 36 tack sharp pixels [please don't answer "crazy stitchers"... ;)]?
- In terms of DR, who needs more?
All this is not done for the sake of improving camera technologies, but to solve practical issues met by photographers. Having spent one month with the d800, I see very few issues left to solve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd say that yes if you go to the Rodenstock Digaron and Schneider Digitar lenses it is clearly superior for what they can do, i e tilt and shift from wide to short tele.
Related, but slightly tangential...
Is this truly the case at the wide end? What about the Canon TS-E's on an HCam?
Is a Rodenstock HR Alpagon 23mm on an Alpa body really better than a 24mm TS-E II on the HCam, assuming the same sensor is used?
The DSLR makers have a huge scale advantage here. If (as I am led to believe) there is not that much between a DSLR lens costing $2,200, and an equivalent MF lens costing 4x the price, I'm not sure how valid the lens argument really is.
-
Related, but slightly tangential...
Is this truly the case at the wide end? What about the Canon TS-E's on an HCam?
Is a Rodenstock HR Alpagon 23mm on an Alpa body really better than a 24mm TS-E II on the HCam, assuming the same sensor is used?
The DSLR makers have a huge scale advantage here. If (as I am led to believe) there is not that much between a DSLR lens costing $2,200, and an equivalent MF lens costing 4x the price, I'm not sure how valid the lens argument really is.
I'd like to know in more detail too, it is a bit hard to find out since the Rodenstocks/Schneiders are rarely tested, one have to find shots here and there on the net and guess from that. The 24mm TS-E II has much better performance than the PC-E 24mm for sure, I have one myself. It is also not as handicapped in movements like the PC-E 24 either. What I do know is that the DSLR lenses get corner sharpness issues at high resolution (the TS-E 24 too), but I don't know for sure how large corner sharpness issues on the wides are for the Rodenstock/Schneiders, maybe problems are larger than I think there.
For me personally the comparison Nikon D800 + PC-E 24 vs Aptus 75 + Schneider 35 XL would be a great test. About the same amount of pixels, same FOV, both able to tilt and shift. I plan to get a 35 XL but don't have it yet unfortunately.
Comparing the 23mm Rodenstock with 70mm image circle with the TS-E 24 II is an interesting lens quality test (would not be surprised if the TS-E wins, it is a great lens), but system-wise it is more relevant to compare it with a 35mm or a 40mm with 90mm image circle. 135 digital only has 36x24mm sensors so they need shorter focal lengths and higher lpmm numbers than a 48x36 or 54x41mm sensor to achieve the same FOV and resolution.
I don't think it is that valuable to mix in price into the equation, speciality products like MF is very expensive and will always have poor price/performance compared to mass-market products. If MF has something to offer and is not too expensive for the professional then it is ok, but if it is just expensive without offering anything then it is worthless...
-
I'd like to know in more detail too, it is a bit hard to find out since the Rodenstocks/Schneiders are rarely tested, one have to find shots here and there on the net and guess from that. The 24mm TS-E II has much better performance than the PC-E 24mm for sure, I have one myself. It is also not as handicapped in movements like the PC-E 24 either. What I do know is that the DSLR lenses get corner sharpness issues at high resolution (the TS-E 24 too), but I don't know for sure how large corner sharpness issues on the wides are for the Rodenstock/Schneiders, maybe problems are larger than I think there.
For me personally the comparison Nikon D800 + PC-E 24 vs Aptus 75 + Schneider 35 XL would be a great test. About the same amount of pixels, same FOV, both able to tilt and shift. I plan to get a 35 XL but don't have it yet unfortunately.
Comparing the 23mm Rodenstock with 70mm image circle with the TS-E 24 II is an interesting lens quality test (would not be surprised if the TS-E wins, it is a great lens), but system-wise it is more relevant to compare it with a 35mm or a 40mm with 90mm image circle. 135 digital only has 36x24mm sensors so they need shorter focal lengths and higher lpmm numbers than a 48x36 or 54x41mm sensor to achieve the same FOV and resolution.
I don't think it is that valuable to mix in price into the equation, speciality products like MF is very expensive and will always have poor price/performance compared to mass-market products. If MF has something to offer and is not too expensive for the professional then it is ok, but if it is just expensive without offering anything then it is worthless...
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Regarding your third paragaph, I think we're both coming at this from slightly different perspectives.
My 23 vs 24 comparison is because a 23 Rodenstock on an Alpa with a IQ180 back will give (almost) the same FoV as a 24 TS-E on the HCam with the same IQ180 back. For me, this is one of the decisions I need to make in the coming months. I want to go wide angle with my IQ180, and need to decide which option to go with - I can't see myself affording (or indeed, wanting) both.
I recognise that if you're doing a MF vs 135 comparison, then it's not valid due to the different sensor sizes.
Regarding your final paragaph, I'm not so convinced that the professional and amateur approach to this subject is particularly different - both will certainly take price into consideration.
For the "true" professional (i.e. one whose primary source of income is derived from photography), there are of course fairly simple ROI calculations to determine whether or not it is worth investing in particular pieces of kit. At the end of the day, those calculations are very much impacted by the capital outlay necessary and depreciation over time, so price is important.
For an amateur (such as myself), MF of course has a barrier to entry based on price, but once you've decided that you're prepared to spend what it takes to join the game, there will always be choices to be made, and those choices will be driven primarily on bang for the buck. For me right now, it's Alpa + one lens, or HCam + several lenses, for the same investment. And if one of those lenses meets or beats the one lens on the Alpa, then (of course based on personal requirements) it's a no-brainer.
The existence of cameras such as the HCam really do break down the technical barriers between MF and 135, and give one the option of cherry-picking the best bits of kit from both worlds. Given that (apparently) there are a range of 135 lenses that are just as good as - if not better than - the best of the MF digital lenses, it wouldn't surprise me if there were further developments in this area.
-
Ah, I understand. Stefan Steib may be able to provide files HCam + 24 TS-E, and at the Getdpi forum you would probably find someone that has IQ180 and a 23mm, and perhaps even some posted examples.
-
I dont think that being lense-limited need to be such a bad thing.
Indeed, it seems to me that:
1. The best use of resources is a design that roughly balances the limitations from the various components such as lenses and sensors, rather than having any one vastly out-perform another, so that much of its good performance will be wasted.
2. In this roughly balanced scenario, the limitations of several components will be significant: you should be able to see that image quality could be improved a bit by either a better lens or a better sensor. And for this, sensor resolution should be balanced against the best that the lens system can offer, meaning in the center of the image delivered by the best lenses at their optimum apertures, which will put the sensor resolution well beyond what you see near the edges with most lenses. If your sensor cannot clearly reveal edge and corner softness, it is not getting the most out of your lens system!
3. When the costs of further improvements are unequal, it probably makes sense to push more on the side where the costs are lower --- and this is almost certainly 35mm format sensors rather than lenses. (However, it might be the reverse in 645 format, if the cost of sensor progress there is as high as it seems to be.)
4. Oversampling the "signal" delivered by the lens is a good thing, for reasons much discussed of late. (Except perhaps if one almost never photographs any of the fine regular stuctures produced by man, or plant, or animal, nor any sharp lines of high contrast like the edges of harsh shadows.)
-
Dear Gerald,
There are such tests for these lenses if you do some research, I've seen such on another forum.
But I would in your case really make my own testing, in my own shooting conditions. The Rodenstock 23mm HR is a fantastic lens, I've used it on many cameras. It is however a very short FL (so is the 24 mm TS) and needs extrem care and precision when focusing and setting movements like shifts, tilts or swings. I can only say that it needs a camera allowing maximum precision.
Concerning Alap, I would suggest you to get in touch with your local Alpa representative, or then to contact Alpa directly in Switzerland. Please also feel free to contact me, should you have specific questions.
Best regards
Thierry
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Regarding your third paragaph, I think we're both coming at this from slightly different perspectives.
My 23 vs 24 comparison is because a 23 Rodenstock on an Alpa with a IQ180 back will give (almost) the same FoV as a 24 TS-E on the HCam with the same IQ180 back. For me, this is one of the decisions I need to make in the coming months. I want to go wide angle with my IQ180, and need to decide which option to go with - I can't see myself affording (or indeed, wanting) both.
I recognise that if you're doing a MF vs 135 comparison, then it's not valid due to the different sensor sizes.
Regarding your final paragaph, I'm not so convinced that the professional and amateur approach to this subject is particularly different - both will certainly take price into consideration.
For the "true" professional (i.e. one whose primary source of income is derived from photography), there are of course fairly simple ROI calculations to determine whether or not it is worth investing in particular pieces of kit. At the end of the day, those calculations are very much impacted by the capital outlay necessary and depreciation over time, so price is important.
For an amateur (such as myself), MF of course has a barrier to entry based on price, but once you've decided that you're prepared to spend what it takes to join the game, there will always be choices to be made, and those choices will be driven primarily on bang for the buck. For me right now, it's Alpa + one lens, or HCam + several lenses, for the same investment. And if one of those lenses meets or beats the one lens on the Alpa, then (of course based on personal requirements) it's a no-brainer.
The existence of cameras such as the HCam really do break down the technical barriers between MF and 135, and give one the option of cherry-picking the best bits of kit from both worlds. Given that (apparently) there are a range of 135 lenses that are just as good as - if not better than - the best of the MF digital lenses, it wouldn't surprise me if there were further developments in this area.
-
I can only say that it needs a camera allowing maximum precision.
If you are going to use the lens at ~f/11 it will work out alright as it does on the DSLR, minor precision errors is hidden by DOF. If you want to use it at f/5.6 more precision is required to get focus distance accurate and avoid leftover tilt (it is easier to get it right when there should be tilt than when there should be no tilt), but then the TS-E 24 corner sharpness will be poor anyway so the lens is not a good choice for that. Possibly the Rodenstock 23 on an Alpa is up for f/5.6 use, I don't know.
In MF I am myself an f/11 guy, and that has saved me a lot of pennies and headaches :-)
-
:D
?
What about those of us shooting 44x33?
-
The quote was referencing:
"It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter."
Some of us are shooting on the thinnest line of all, 44x33 exactly.
-
...an image from a normal (not multishot) 22MP back has less resolution that given by a D800(E) with good enough lenses, and up-sampling will not overcome that.
¿Is this your opinion or whose?
¿Or the result of whose test?
¿Do they make "good enough" lenses for Nikon?... (To be good enough to get good res out of such a small sensor they would have to be better than the best MF lenses.)
-
Hi Bernard,
My idea, which you quoted a bit out of context, is that we still have development going on. As we have 24 MP APS-C, from Sony and now Nikon, it is obvious that we can also build a 54 MP sensor. Such a sensor is simply an 24 MP APS-C sensor scaled up to full frame. There are certainly a lot of lenses that would match that resolution.
On the other hand we are approaching physical limits. I don't think we will go much beyond 3 micron pitch, that would be 96 MP. There are some advantages with decreasing pixel pitch. Aliasing will be reduced and real resolution is always better than interpolated resolution.
I don't know if there is need for more than 36 MP. If image quality is improved with 54 MP (or 96MP) than just fine.
Best regards
Erik
Not, it is not, but the question is whether it has to be or not?
- In terms of resolution, who needs more than 36 tack sharp pixels [please don't answer "crazy stitchers"... ;)]?
- In terms of DR, who needs more?
All this is not done for the sake of improving camera technologies, but to solve practical issues met by photographers. Having spent one month with the d800, I see very few issues left to solve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Dick,
The resolution tests are out there, and for one thing they seem to show that the D800(E) has higher resolution that is possible with a 22MP back, due to the Nyquist limit. And yes, there are Nikon (and Zeiss) lenses with enough resolution to keep up. As has been pointed often in this forum, there are a good number of 35mm format lenses that keep up with the resolution on 16MP, 18MP and even 24MP in "APS-C" formats, and the D800 is no more demanding (in lp/mm) than a 16MP Nikon DX sensor, and less demanding than an 18MP Canon or a 24MP Sony in APS-C.
What would make you think that the 7,360 x 4,912 pixels of the D800(E) sensor would fail to deliver more "lines per picture height" than a 5344 x 4008 (22MP) sensor, given the difference of 22 - 38% in linear pixel count?
-
Hi,
The question is not only about resolution but also MTF, and than we would need add sharpening to the equation.
I have little doubt that the best primes would work just fine with the Nikon D800.
My guess is that the D800 would give better image quality than 20-25 MP MFDB. We also need to keep in mind that we may have different croppings. A square image on the D800 would be 24 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Dick,
The resolution tests are out there, and for one thing they seem to show that the D800(E) has higher resolution that is possible with a 22MP back, due to the Nyquist limit. And yes, there are Nikon (and Zeiss) lenses with enough resolution to keep up. As has been pointed often in this forum, there are a good number of 35mm format lenses that keep up with the resolution on 16MP, 18MP and even 24MP in "APS-C" formats, and the D800 is no more demanding (in lp/mm) than a 16MP Nikon DX sensor, and less demanding than an 18MP Canon or a 24MP Sony in APS-C.
What would make you think that the 7,360 x 4,912 pixels of the D800(E) sensor would fail to deliver more "lines per picture height" than a 5344 x 4008 (22MP) sensor, given the difference of 22 - 38% in linear pixel count?
-
As we have 24 MP APS-C, from Sony and now Nikon, it is obvious that we can also build a 54 MP sensor. Such a sensor is simply an 24 MP APS-C sensor scaled up to full frame. There are certainly a lot of lenses that would match that resolution.
I think that scaling a given sensel infinitely may be practically and economically difficult.
If the probability of a section of the sensor being catastrophically damaged is some "p", then increasing the area of the chip leads to a drastic increase in the number of chips that have to be trashed. If your wafer is circular, then increasing the size of (a rectangular) chip leads to more wasted wafer area. Those are the classic microprocessor arguments against large chips.
It is my understanding that the photolithography used to make camera sensors and microprocessors is quite expensive and specialized gear, and that the camera sensor manufacturers have to borrow equipment/processes originally developed for microprocessors. There is supposedly some upper limit on the area that can usually be formed in "one go", somewhat smaller than 24x36mm, meaning that large image sensor manufacturers have to rely on ad-hoc solutions ("stitching"?) that no doubt further increase cost and time to market.
All based on internet hearsay...
-h
-
Unless they are small wafers where you use one per chip, making the most of the round lens output.
-
I think he may have been "thrown off" by him saying how heavy the D800 is....At least thats what it sounded like?
While it maybe heavy...if you only use your MF on a stand and not even hold it. Otherwise the SLR is gonna be a lot less weight.
-
...so now all high-end MF backs have microlenses...
Actually, almost no MF backs have microlenses these days. The last microlensed MF backs were the P30+, H4D31 and H4D40, and a couple of Sinars (eSprit65, eVolution86H).
All the Phase One backs > 31MP, the Hasselblad backs > 40MP, and all the Leaf backs (of any size) lack microlenses. For Phase and Leaf, that's every one of their "high-end" backs, including the IQ and Credo series, as well as all of the higher-megapixel P+ and Aptus ones.
Since about 2009, there's been an interesting DALSA 48MP, 6 micron, 48x36mm sensor (FTF-6080C) which does have microlenses, and impressively low (for MFD) readout noise of 12 e-. I know I tend to kick DALSA MF sensors a lot - they deserve it for being so far behind Kodak in dark noise, q.e., IR sensitivity, and (to a much lesser extent) readout noise - but this one actually looks pretty good for visible light! Apart from it still suffering the DALSA Achilles' heel of high dark noise limiting long exposures, it is closely analagous to the Kodak 50MP, 6 micron, 49x36mm sensor in the H4D-50/CFV-50, but with the addition of microlenses and slightly more DR. The microlenses take its q.e. higher than the Kodak 50MP sensor...but still way short of the q.e. of the equivalent microlensed 6 micron Kodak sensor (the 40MP in the Pentax 645D and H4D40).
But strangely, only one MFD manufacturer is using this chip, and that's in a tethered-only, multishot back (Sinar eVolution 86H) - no LCD, no card, no battery! It's very surprising that those who are currently 100% wedded to DALSA (Phase & Leaf) don't use it in a normal portable back. Anyway, that's yet another tangent to this thread...
Ray
-
Actually, almost no MF backs have microlenses these days. The last microlensed MF backs were the P30+, H4D31 and H4D40, and a couple of Sinars (eSprit65, eVolution86H).
All the Phase One backs > 31MP, the Hasselblad backs > 40MP, and all the Leaf backs (of any size) lack microlenses. For Phase and Leaf, that's every one of their "high-end" backs, including the IQ and Credo series, as well as all of the higher-megapixel P+ and Aptus ones.
Uh, no? The IQ180 etc have the same problems but less so, my understanding was that this was due to better microlens design, not removal of them. I have seen myself those vertical streaks in IQ180 files for shifted non-retro wides, if that is not from the microlenses, what is it?
From http://www.phaseone.com/en/Search/Article.aspx?articleid=1221&languageid=1
"Furthermore the P 65+/IQ160/IQ180 is not recommended with extreme wide non-retro focus lenses like the Schneider Kreuznach 35mm XL and even the Schneider Kreuznack 47 mm XL. Even though these lenses has more than 70 mm image circle, they are producing a very steep angle incoming light along the edges, occasionally causing thin lines to show up in the image."
-
- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
And honestly it's 6am and I haven't had my coffee yet so I imagine I'm missing quite a few.
O yeah and the look, and the image quality which, yes, is still better :-).
*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.
Had Doug had his coffee, he might also have thought of this one:
- You have a special optic, like a telescope or microscope or ancient Petzval lens, with high image quality (or poor but interestingly funky image quality!) over a generous image circle. What camera should you strap on the back of it? Obviously, the one with the bigger sensor, taking the most advantage of the overall image delivered by the optic.
It is for this very reason that companies like Takahashi, Borg, Astro-Physics, William Optics, etc. etc. make and have always made adapters for both small and medium format cameras to their high-end APO telescopes.
You see, debates like D800 vs. MFD have always taken place in the assumption that whatever optics MFD has, there's an equivalent scaled down lens from the 35mm mfgr which can deliver the same lp/ph or look on their smaller, denser sensor.
But sometimes the optic is fixed, unique and unscaleable...and the nod must go to Medium Format.
Ray
-
Uh, no? The IQ180 etc have the same problems but less so, my understanding was that this was due to better microlens design, not removal of them. I have seen myself those vertical streaks in IQ180 files for shifted non-retro wides, if that is not from the microlenses, what is it?
From http://www.phaseone.com/en/Search/Article.aspx?articleid=1221&languageid=1
"Furthermore the P 65+/IQ160/IQ180 is not recommended with extreme wide non-retro focus lenses like the Schneider Kreuznach 35mm XL and even the Schneider Kreuznack 47 mm XL. Even though these lenses has more than 70 mm image circle, they are producing a very steep angle incoming light along the edges, occasionally causing thin lines to show up in the image."
I gather that such problems can occur at very steep incident angles, even without microlenses. Over on getDPI, Yair once pointed out to me that the old non-microlensed 9 micron Kodak sensors had pixel crosstalk of this nature, when lenses were shifted.
I have never seen a reference to these DALSA 40/60/80 MP sensors using microlenses, and the low base ISO specs (35/50) of the backs certainly indicate that they lack them.
In the lists of "don't use the following backs with tech cameras - because of their microlenses!" that dealers helpfully provide, I don't recall seeing any backs using the DALSA 40/60/80 MP sensors.
But I could be wrong. But you know what would really eliminate all doubt and put this to bed, once and for all? If we had the DALSA 40/60/80 MP CCD datasheets! A month or two ago, Steve Hendrix promised to source them for us...maybe this will act as a reminder!
Ray
-
But I could be wrong.
And me too! What a dreadful thought... :-)
-
I think the best thing to do is to shoot a few weeks with a D800 and get to know it.
-
:D
Eduardo
The quote was referencing:
"It's only a very thin line separating MF shooters under 44X33 and MF shooters over 44X33. I think that whatever touches the former, eventually will touch the latter."
Some of us are shooting on the thinnest line of all, 44x33 exactly.
-
The question is not only about resolution but also MTF, and than we would need add sharpening to the equation.
Yes, I was rather loosely using "resolution" as shorthand to cover things like "MTF as a given lp/mm, or a given lp/ph".
We also need to keep in mind that we may have different croppings. A square image on the D800 would be 24 MP.
And more relevant, a crop to 4:3 shape would be 32x24mm and 32MP.
Another thought: the D800E pixel size is not that much smaller than in the 80MP backs:
- The 80MP sensor is 10328 x 7760 over 53.7x40.4mm, so 5.2 micron pixel spacing, or 192 pixel per mm, so with Nyquist limit 96 lp/mm.
- The D800(E) sensor is 7,360 x 4,912 over 35.9x24mm, so 4.9 micron pixel spacing, or 205 pixel per mm, so with Nyquist limit 102 lp/mm.
So with the overall trend (based on fundamental optical factors like spherical aberration) being that good lenses for smaller formats have better resolution in the sense of higher MTF at equal lp/mm (larger formats win at equal line pairs per picture height, by having more picture height) the fact that MF lens systems are keeping up with 80MP backs suggests that 35mm lens systems should likewise be able to keep up with the D800(E) sensor.
Also, as I have mentioned before, fine grained black and white films like TMAX 100 still out-resolve any of these sensors, and I have never heard either 35mm or MF users commenting that the resolution of such films is useless because lenses are inadequate, so why should this be the case with sensors? Especially when one allows that Bayer demosaicing reduces the resolution somewhat, so lenses with good MTF up to about 80lp/mm should be able to keep up with these sensor just fine.
(TMAX 100 has MTF of 70% or better out to about 100lp/mm, at or beyond the Nyquist limit of any of these sensors, and has MTF of 50% or better out to 125lp/mm, the Nyquist limit for the 24MP "APS-C" Sony/Nikon sensors. We are still "not there yet" in terms of DSLR sensors out-resolving all film.)
-
Hi,
That is pretty much what I have seen. Both Velvia 6x7 and Ektar 100 6x7 outresolve 24MP Sony Alpha 900 on high contrast detail, but the Sony image is much smoother and outresolves 6x7 film on low contrast detail.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/Alph900vsAnalogue2/EktarVSA900_Forsmark_3200.jpg
Best regards
Erik
(TMAX 100 has MTF of 70% or better out to about 100lp/mm, at or beyond the Nyquist limit of any of these sensors, and has MTF of 50% or better out to 125lp/mm, the Nyquist limit for the 24MP "APS-C" Sony/Nikon sensors. We are still "not there yet" in terms of DSLR sensors out-resolving all film.)
-
Also, as I have mentioned before, fine grained black and white films like TMAX 100 still out-resolve any of these sensors, and I have never heard either 35mm or MF users commenting that the resolution of such films is useless because lenses are inadequate, so why should this be the case with sensors?
It is a question of current pricing. In the MF world a high pixel count is extremely expensive, so you don't really want to pay for more pixels than your lenses can resolve, then you just could buy a cheaper back instead. For DSLRs a high MP count don't really cost more for the customer, and in that case it can indeed be nice to extract all resolution the lenses can deliver.
-
In the MF world a high pixel count is extremely expensive, so you don't really want to pay for more pixels than your lenses can resolve ...
The dominant factor in MF sensor production cost is sensor size, not pixel count. High pixel counts are correlated with high price, but mainly through being correlated with larger sensor sizes. When it comes to retail prices, the higher MP count MF options are largely more expensive due to larger sensor size (like the same 6 micron pixels in 40MP 44x33mm, 48MP 48x36mm, and 60MP 54x40mm). There is also a natural market value premium for the higher resolution options and newer sensor models (80MP vs 60MP, newer 48MP vs older generation 22MP sensors at 48x36mm, etc.) I do not see much or any evidence that increasing the pixel count at the same sensor size causes a significant increase in the _production cost_ of a MF back, anymore than it does for smaller formats. As an extremely well-known example with smaller formats, the 36MP Nikon D800 costs no more than any previous Nikon model in 36x24mm format, and $500 less that the 22MP Canon 5D MkIII.
And any decent MF lens can resolve well enough that an increase in sensor resolution (smaller pixels, more l/mm) will give an increase in image resolution. This gain does not stop simply because one is in the regime where both lens and sensor contribute to the overall resolution limits. MF is not at the stage where any MF sensor has "more pixels than your lenses can resolve". A more relevant issue seems to be "more pixels than the viewers of the image can resolve": plenty of MF users say that about 40MP is enough for all their practical/comercial purposes, and a good number go as low as 22MP on their resolution needs.