Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Stefan.Steib on April 27, 2012, 03:33:18 am
-
I have done a test wednesday on the PCP Show in Frankfurt where I happened to have my booth beneath Nikon´s. I used our Hartblei 4/40 IF TS on the D800E. I will link to full resolution JPG´s (and NEF´s) on my server, done with Lightroom 4.1 Beta (I have to say this new version really looks good to me , mostly it´s F_A_S_T !) The first shot _DSC5245.jpg is a closeup that shows what happens when you go to fabric with a really sharp lens (the Zeiss datasheet for our lens states 200 LPmm), we have a heavy Moiree here- I did NOT use any moiree correction to make it obvious. Aperture was f11, heavy Benbo MK5 tripod used, Mirror prerelease 2 sec, video focused on point.
The second image _DSC5250.jpg was shot a bit more backwards to show the scene, there you can also see the original colors of the fabric without moiree.
The settings for the JPG´s are: Quality 100 %/300 dpi/ProPhotoRGB.
I tried to get the "medium Format look" that some people describe with some finetuning, both images use the exact same sharpness and other settings.
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5245.jpg
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5250.jpg
the NEF´s are here
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5245.NEF
http://www.hcam.de/downloads/_DSC5250.NEF
I would say that matches MF in the good and in the bad.
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
-
Lovely Moire on those fabrics ;)
-
This is intentionally, I just wanted to show this to the Nikon guys, they were just flattened by the amount of Moiree our 40mm was able to produce with the D800E.... :)
Whereas Lightroom or Capture One can of course remove this completely.
I just tried Lightroom 4.1 RC2 - cool !
regards
Stefan
-
Stefan any idea why they do not use any compression on the D800? Or it might be that Apple still haven't added RAW support in 10.7 so it's not reading the file size properly?
-
Both the Phase/Leaf 80 MPixel backs have 5 um pixel size like the Nikon D800. And the D800 - according DXO tests - at least reaches the DR of the MF backs (14.4 vs. 13.6), so using the same lens should lead to similar picture quality results (if the MF backs are cropped to 36 MP like the D800), if the D800E is used (in order to avoid an AA-filter for D800 and MF).
So the main difference should be the pixel count.
-
Hi Yair
I had used the max filesize, 14 bit, no compression for this test (thanks to the friendly help of Nikon Germany, who assisted me in this, otherwise I would not have found everything so fast, because the amount of settings is OVERWHELMING !)
Greetings from Lindenberg
Stefan
-
The first shot _DSC5245.jpg ... we have a heavy Moiree ... Aperture was f11 ...
If the strategy of avoiding moiré and "Christmas lights" and other aliasing artifacts with the D800E involves stopping done beyond f/11, then it involves diffraction effects that sacrifice far more resolution/detail/sharpness/accutance/whatever than doing it the way the way that signal processing professionals have always done it: with low pass filtering. So it seems that if I am interested in subjects with fine regular patterns, be they layers in sedimentary rocks of patterns in plumage or [animals] stripes or lines in buildings or in fabrics, I would be better of with an OLP filter. (Batch sharpening FTW!)
-
For sure if I´d be doing fabrics the whole day (catalogue and fashion as well as portrait) I´d choose the normal D800.
for anybody else with normal usage and a good rawconverter with moiree removal I´d say go with the D800E. (Best buy both and have a spare if neccessary)
Same thing applies in full to every MF back without AA Filter. So now I ask- how are you using your MF backs ?
No Catalogue, fashion and portrait ?
:-)
Regards
Stefan
-
Hi Stefan,
Had a played with the raw images from the D800E and I will be ordering one with the battery grip. My complete Mamiya 645AFDII camera and all my Mamiya lenses will be sold as I will have no use for it. I will keep my Leaf Aptus 75 for my Mamaya RZ and Sinar systems as I just couldn’t part with them. I will use my Nikon D3x where I know that moiré will be a problem such as fashion and will wait for Nikon to introduce a Nikon D4x which I am positive will happen.
I haven't used the Leaf Aptus 75 for over 3 years for any fashion or location work cause of the problem of moiré.
Its interesting that Michael Reichmann likes to quote the boogie man when it comes to moiré, well i just what to say with no disrespect Michael the boogie man is real and when he shows he certainly can bite you on the bum.
Cheers
Simon
-
So now I ask- how are you using your MF backs ?
No Catalogue, fashion and portrait ?
My last MF camera was a Brownie ... but my subject matter does include fine regularly patterned architectural details and bird plumage and friends in striped shirts, so for me, following "digital signal acquisition best practice" (low pass filtering before sampling) is probably the right choice. Or at least, the safe, lazy choice for avoiding PP fixes.
-
Whereas Lightroom or Capture One can of course remove this completely.
I just tried Lightroom 4.1 RC2 - cool !
Okay, so what settings did you use in Lightroom to remove this?
also kudos for sheer awesomeness & usefulness of these examples, and of course for making the RAW files available...
-
I tried the Masking effects in LR 4.1 RC2. You can just chose Moire, set your brushsize and removal amount and brush it off.
Works pretty fast and normally you do not have a full image of moiree as in my sample.
regards
Stefan
-
I have done a test wednesday on the PCP Show in Frankfurt where I happened to have my booth beneath Nikon´s. I used our Hartblei 4/40 IF TS on the D800E.
Can I just ask why did you choose TS lens to shoot totally flat and vertical plane?
-
Both the Phase/Leaf 80 MPixel backs have 5 um pixel size like the Nikon D800. And the D800 - according DXO tests - at least reaches the DR of the MF backs (14.4 vs. 13.6), so using the same lens should lead to similar picture quality results (if the MF backs are cropped to 36 MP like the D800), if the D800E is used (in order to avoid an AA-filter for D800 and MF).
So the main difference should be the pixel count.
This of course assumes that DXOs measure of DR corresponds perfectly to most photographer's needs.
Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.
I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.
DXO is a great source of information and I think the photo community is lucky to have them. But they are at their most useful when comparing similar camera systems (e.g. one generation of nikon dSLR to the next generation of nikon dSLR), rather than comparing systems that are different in just about every way (e.g. D800 vs. IQ180). Especially once you through software in the mix where some of the magic of an integrated software/hardware solution like Phase+C1 or Hassy+Phocus comes into play.
-
Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.
I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.
With more than 200gb of images captured, I can confidently say that actual shooting with the D800 confirms the DxO data, or at least that I do not see any discrepency. Does this mean that it is as good as an IQ180? I cannot tell, but it sure seems good enough for any practical application I am throwing at it, like in brilliantly good enough.
Those files are simply amazingly clean and robust. Piling up curve adjustments layers, moving back and forth from RGB to lab,... None of this seems to put a dent in the files. I hear that the D800E is even cleaner for those not concerned by color aliasing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Does the D800E put out MF quality? In a word, "yes".
Frankly, the only reasons I can presently see to shoot MF under 60/80MP is because it perfectly fits your workflow, you absolutely need the 645's better image aspect ratio, or your professional image precludes showing up with 35mm gear (a valid concern in several of the industry's shallower sectors).
Moire is functionally a myth, or at least no more of a reality than it always has been with MF. If you shoot fashion, get a D800.
- N.
-
Hi,
It seems that some of the posters having experience with different sensors confirm the validity of DR measurements by DxO.
Marc McCalmont has posted some info. He has or have had P45+, IQ180, Canon 5DII, Pentax K5 and now Nikon D800E. His experience essentially agrees with DxO-mark.
Mark Dubovoy, the guy who claimed 6 stops of DR advantage of MFD over DSLRs now seems to be content with the DR on his D800E.
I guess that some of the info regarding DR advantage of MF over DSLRs is coming from Canon users, all Canon cameras are pretty bad on DR at base ISO.
Although it's possible to have good high ISO performance and have bad DR at base ISO, which the Canons illustrate, any camera having good DR at base ISO would also excel at high ISO, because increasing ISO is basically just underexposure. On the high end, near saturation all sensors are created almost equal.
Now, I'd say that we need to look at the whole system, subject, lens-shade, lens, camera body, sensor, tripod and photographer. That still leaves out what is made in post. Phase One also develops Capture one, one the best raw converters. It is quite possible that Capture One can make the best of Phase One images.
Best regards
Erik
This of course assumes that DXOs measure of DR corresponds perfectly to most photographer's needs.
Noise and tonality is a funny thing, two images can have very similar numerical measures of noise and one can be a beautiful aesthetically pleasing gaussian grain and the other a horridly ugly clumping of crappy noise. This is especially when it comes to smooth transitions of tone and color accuracy because when you need to dig deep into shadows it is these attributes that either allow you to include shadow detail as part of the overall frame in a way that looks natural or not.
I'm not saying that is the case here. I've not spent enough time yet with a D800 to comment. I'm simply saying that purely numerical measures of photographic quality are always very dangerous to use on their own.
DXO is a great source of information and I think the photo community is lucky to have them. But they are at their most useful when comparing similar camera systems (e.g. one generation of nikon dSLR to the next generation of nikon dSLR), rather than comparing systems that are different in just about every way (e.g. D800 vs. IQ180). Especially once you through software in the mix where some of the magic of an integrated software/hardware solution like Phase+C1 or Hassy+Phocus comes into play.
-
Hi,
I plan to look more into this. This is the effect of stopping down on three APS-C sensors.
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=66833.0;attach=59874;image)
Best regards
Erik
If the strategy of avoiding moiré and "Christmas lights" and other aliasing artifacts with the D800E involves stopping done beyond f/11, then it involves diffraction effects that sacrifice far more resolution/detail/sharpness/accutance/whatever than doing it the way the way that signal processing professionals have always done it: with low pass filtering. So it seems that if I am interested in subjects with fine regular patterns, be they layers in sedimentary rocks of patterns in plumage or [animals] stripes or lines in buildings or in fabrics, I would be better of with an OLP filter. (Batch sharpening FTW!)
-
I have myself compared my Aptus75 with a D7000, pixel per pixel (no scaling to adjust for resolution). The D7000 is per pixel quite close to D800, and the Aptus75 is quite close to D800 in resolution but is of course a rather old back now (I don't think the current Aptus-II 7 in terms of image quality is miles ahead though). What you can see there is that clearly the D7000 has lower noise floor, but from saturation to about 7 stops down the Aptus is a bit less noisy. I think this is due to lower photon shot noise.
So which one of them has higher dynamic range? Technically speaking, the D7000 of course since it has lower noise floor. But from a photographic standpoint you may argue that it is more important to have cleaner darks and midtones than the very-close-to-black shadows. If you are a photographer who never pushes shadows in post-processing you probably won't enjoy the clean superdark shadows, but may enjoy the cleaner brighter parts of the picture (probably a bit better tonality). On the other hand one can argue that the D7000 is already so clean that the even less noise of the Aptus75 is irrelevant.
Therefore I think the dxomark DR measurement is a bit one-dimensional. It would be interesting if one could measure in things like "skin-tone tonal range in well-exposed pictures" etc.
-
I tried it. Put lenses into the equation, it's not M9 quality yet.
-
[..]
Therefore I think the dxomark DR measurement is a bit one-dimensional. It would be interesting if one could measure in things like "skin-tone tonal range in well-exposed pictures" etc.
Hi,
The DR test is just that. It gives a good impression about how fast the shadows will block up. What you are looking for is the SNR 18% test (medium brightness levels), because there the photon shot noise will dominate. Larger sensels generally have a benefit since they can collect more photons before they saturate, and more photons usually lead to smoother gradations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bernard, Erik, et al I have my D800E/Leica R lenses and my IQ180/Rodenstock HR lenses in Tokyo so any tests or comparisons you want let me know. First day with the D800 just getting to know it and figuring out where things are on a Nikon but initial shots from my apartment balcony looked promising. Not sure if pixel for pixel one could tell the 2 apart? More pixels on the IQ but longer lenses for the D800E, certainly better pixels than on my 5DII.
Marc
-
I tried it. Put lenses into the equation, it's not M9 quality yet.
Yes me too think lenses is an important factor. For people photographers and other short DoF photography the bokeh and other aspects of lens look will be important, but also very much a subjective thing. One may prefer leica look or maybe nikon look, or maybe one thinks it doesn't matter because they look similar enough, or one sees it as just two different looks and both are ok.
For large DoF landscape photography I personally think the technical cameras with Rodenstock/Schneider lenses is ahead in sharpness and flexibility when combined with a MF sensor, but it would be interesting with a bit more testing on this. It is also a matter of taste and photography style if you consider for example zoom lenses to be more important flexibility factor than the ability to freely shift and tilt (for me it is the latter).
-
Torger raises a point that I have thought about theoretically, so I am glad to hear of it being put to the test, and look forward to image comparisons.
I can imagine that in a comparison between
- a larger CCD with larger full well capacity, and
- a smaller active pixel CMOS sensor with dark noise lower by enough to have a higher engineering dynamic range,
that the comparisons of noise levels in images could vary over four zomes, defined in terms of exposure level counted down from full well capacity:
Zone 3: "bright"
So much light that noise is irrelevant. Hopefully true down to somewhere below the midtones in exposures as base ISO speed.
Zone 2: "light shadows"
Enough light that noise is dominated by photon shot noise, but little enough that some noise is visible. Then the larger sensor, which counts more photons at each lighting level, has better SNR, and could look better. Inexpect that this is true down till four or more stops below midtones, beyond which a print of normal contrast is rendering everything as black anyway.
Zone 1: "deep shadows"
So little light that dark noise from the sensor and other electronics is significant, at least with the CCD, and the CMOS sensor has a practical advantage in SNR, useful for pulling these deep shadows up in scenes of High Subject Brightness Range.
Zone 0: "darkess"
So little light that the SNR from either sensor is unacceptably low, and you want not want to print or display thisnas anything other than black. Having a SNR of 4:1 instead of 2:1 is nothing but a paper victory for artistic photography, even though it can be a big deal for astronomy or surveillance.
-
The DR test is just that. It gives a good impression about how fast the shadows will block up. What you are looking for is the SNR 18% test (medium brightness levels), because there the photon shot noise will dominate.
Thanks; I should have mentioned that SNR 18% as a useful measure at the midtones.
But might it also be useful to look at SNR in the moderate shadows, say at one, two, and three stops below the midtones? I take three stops below the midtones as the bottom of the main range for scenes of average Subject Brightness Range.
Can this information be gleaned roughly by looking at the SNR 18% figures at exposure indices (ISO speeds) of one, two, and three stops higher?
-
I tried it. Put lenses into the equation, it's not M9 quality yet.
Which lenses did you use on the D800E in your comparisons to the M9?
-
But might it also be useful to look at SNR in the moderate shadows, say at one, two, and three stops below the midtones? I take three stops below the midtones as the bottom of the main range for scenes of average Subject Brightness Range.
Can this information be gleaned roughly by looking at the SNR 18% figures at exposure indices (ISO speeds) of one, two, and three stops higher?
Hi,
Well the SNR 18% chart sort of allows to do that, but there can be (sometimes significant) differences in how the cameras use amplification to boost the underexposed signals at higher ISOs. Some cameras and/or Raw converters also change their default processing before writing the Raw data or the demosaiced image based on the ISO setting. So then we're adding amplification and signal processing in the mix, which of course is interesting as well for the resulting image unless one strictly wants to evaluate e.g. low ISO performance at different brightness levels.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I also did a full shift up 10mm and one down 10mm of the overview, but I thought this is not of relevance as I only wanted to produce as much and as defined moiree as possible.If anyone is interested I can also put these 2 up.
Regards
Stefan
-
Here's a few comparisons between H4D-40 and D800:
http://www.buschphoto.com/blog/
What I find most remarkable is the D800 color error in the portrait example:
http://www.buschphoto.com/storage/port_compare1.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1334260989094
(left hasselblad, right D800 with yellowish tone)
but I suppose that can be because Nikon don't care much to help out Adobe to reproduce good color in Lightroom, perhaps nx2 would yield better result, don't know. Neither Canon or Nikon has been very helpful in letting third party software process their raw files, which I think is a big mistake.
-
Can we return to the question posed: namely, does the 800E reach MF quality?
I am still shooting film on the MF kit BTW.
I got a little lost in the cross-banter and was wondering, like many others, if the 800 or the 800e is going to be best for me, replacing the old stalwarts, the D700.
I get the impression from one well known site that the filter in the non-E could not be replicated in any 3rd party software, but in this post that is diputed with the LR 4.1 software, so if you do suffer some moire, LR will right the wrong?
That being the case, is there any real case to take the 800 over the slightly more expensive 800e?
Lastly, & since most of the lenses I have are circa 2000, albeit f2.8 on the 3x zooms, is this something of Fools' Gold since the older lenses are not good enough for the 800e to make its self known beyond the 800?
So, aside from my own questions: does this 800e reach levels that might render some MF kit somewhat redundant?
Thanks
Tim
-
Tim,
If you are used to shooting MF film (and scanning, I presume) the resolution of the D800 will astound you, as will the usable depth of shadows. Yesterday I processed a frame (in LR4) where a pedestrian was in total silhouette shadow in front of a day-lit building. Just using the shadows slider I was able to open the highlights so fully as to read his watch. Even my wife, a knowledgable non-photographer, was blown away.
Suffice to say, DR is phenomenal.
Resolution far exceeds what any MF kit will produce, and I say that as a long-time shooter of everything from 645 to 69. As with all digital, the 'look' is different than analog printed to analog. But in terms of resolution, it well and truly is a step above.
As for 800E/800, the "E" is better if you care about a slight increase in accutance and prefere the look of non-AA'd chips. I do, so it was a no-brainer. Get an 800 if you shoot a lot of fabrics or architectual work. The difference is not huge, but perceptible.
As regards lenses, don't get too worried. All of Nikon's better lenses will produce good results on the 800s, but the newer and better lenses will get more out of it. In particular, the 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 have proven astonishing in my early testing. The 16-35, however, is also really far better than it has any right to be. I'd suggest you try what you have and, if you see sub-opptimal performance, replace your most used lens with something state-of-the-art. But don't be fooled into thinking you need brand new primes to see the 800's advantages. That is simply not true.
Lastly, I personally find this notion that software can undo the effects of an AA filter to be kind of funny. You can safely ignore that. While talking about it appears to make some theoreticians happy, in terms of actual photography, forget it.
-
Lastly, & since most of the lenses I have are circa 2000, albeit f2.8 on the 3x zooms, is this something of Fools' Gold since the older lenses are not good enough for the 800e to make its self known beyond the 800?
Tim are you sure they are that old? Or are they film lenses? (am asking because right until the D3 came out there were no FX lenses available)
Yair
PS does you username mean you ride a Ti 29er? Which one?
-
Hi,
I essentially agree with Nick, will just add a couple of points.
1) I have done a lot of tests comparing my Pentax 67 using Velvia and Ektar 100 with my Sony Alpha 900 and found the digital camera to be superior. You can check my tests here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
If you check out my tests, keep in mind that you need to click on the images once or twice to get full size.
Another point I would make is that the sensor in your D7000 has the same pixel pitch as the one in the D800, so if your lenses work well with the D7000 they will also work with the D800, unless you are pixel peeping in the corners, where weakness normally shows up. Lenses from 2000 may be just fine.
Regarding the OLP filtering, the way I see it I would make the following points:
- It seems that landscape photographers seldom have issue with moiré even with moiré prone cameras.
- Many subjects are moiré prone, like textile
- The effect of the AA-filter can be compensated for by improved sharpening, but that may also increase noise in the image
- Moiré can be reduced by a special filter brush in Lightroom
So you can go either way and be happy. If you shoot moiré prone subjects you would probably choose the D800.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=66893.msg528667
Best regards
Erik
Tim,
If you are used to shooting MF film (and scanning, I presume) the resolution of the D800 will astound you, as will the usable depth of shadows. Yesterday I processed a frame (in LR4) where a pedestrian was in total silhouette shadow in front of a day-lit building. Just using the shadows slider I was able to open the highlights so fully as to read his watch. Even my wife, a knowledgable non-photographer, was blown away.
Suffice to say, DR is phenomenal.
Resolution far exceeds what any MF kit will produce, and I say that as a long-time shooter of everything from 645 to 69. As with all digital, the 'look' is different than analog printed to analog. But in terms of resolution, it well and truly is a step above.
As for 800E/800, the "E" is better if you care about a slight increase in accutance and prefere the look of non-AA'd chips. I do, so it was a no-brainer. Get an 800 if you shoot a lot of fabrics or architectual work. The difference is not huge, but perceptible.
As regards lenses, don't get too worried. All of Nikon's better lenses will produce good results on the 800s, but the newer and better lenses will get more out of it. In particular, the 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 have proven astonishing in my early testing. The 16-35, however, is also really far better than it has any right to be. I'd suggest you try what you have and, if you see sub-opptimal performance, replace your most used lens with something state-of-the-art. But don't be fooled into thinking you need brand new primes to see the 800's advantages. That is simply not true.
Lastly, I personally find this notion that software can undo the effects of an AA filter to be kind of funny. You can safely ignore that. While talking about it appears to make some theoreticians happy, in terms of actual photography, forget it.
-
Hi.
Shooting the MF film on an old Mamiya 7.
Scanning done by a pro lab in town (££!) although I was looking at buying an Epson V600 maybe.
A few issues aside it (not focucing correctly and the markers for the various lenses doesn't work!) works well enough and shooting 160 film, but shifting to Reala for a change.
The Ti29er was a Lynsky bike made by them to an On-One design. Stopped riding 2yrs ago after a problem with my L leg, still unsure what happened but it was on a training ride a few weeks after the UK 24hr solo championships. All my pals are racing well and climbing the race leaderboard getting podiums. I'm not. They're all on carbon 29ers now, Scott, Fisher and Spec' bikes.
Next appt with a dr / specialist is actually in a few hrs to review the MRI scans as they showed nothing out of the ordinary.
Cheers
Tim
-
Is just me, or do the Nikon exposure in the Nikon v. 'Blad test linked above consistently seems to have greater exposure? Especially the kitchen still-life.
- N.
-
It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.
First of all :
Sensor size.
You can not compare a DSLR sensor to a sensor from a MF camera.
Due to the larger sensor the LOOK of the images is different, already mentioned before the DOF is totally different but also the angle of view. Of course one could choose a 50mm on a DSLR and a 80mm on a MF but still the look is different.
Then we have :
1 fps for MF which is a great tempo to work with for for example fashion, this could be solved by firmware on a DSLR I know, but it isn't yet.
With leaf shutter lenses you can go up to 1/1600 with strobes or higher.
I know that with SOME strobes and Pocketwizard you can get there also using Hypersync but for example in my setup (all A heads on Rangers/Quadras) it simply doesn't go higher than 1/350, I can go higher with a D-lite but those I don't use outside and that's were it counts.
Diffraction, with the 33MP Leaf AptusII I can shoot without any problem on F16-F22, with my 5DMKIII I see a degradation in the image above F11 on some lenses.
But maybe more importantly, when shooting for example fashion MF makes it possible to shoot from the SAME distance with longer lens and higher shutter speed with strobes, meaning we can get shallow DOF while fighting the sun (using strobes on full power).
I really wonder if we had the same conversation if the D800 would have been released with 24MPs. It seems that as soon as people see a camera with the same amount of MPs that MF has the discussion starts up again.
By the way I will not say that the D800 or 5DMKIII is a bad camera, but I base my decision which one to buy/use on the "horses for courses" idea. Meaning with AF nothing beats a DSLR, High ISO DSLR again, recovery from shadow areas seems the D800(E), however when I want to shoot a studio fashion series where I control the light there is no need for lighting up the shadows, but here the 1fps is ideal, the extra shutter speeds with strobes and of course the totally different DOF, meaning for those sessions nothing at the moment beats a MF camera.....
Now fast forward a few years (maybe shorter)
The first REAL mirror less camera is released, no more limitations in shutter speeds with strobes, we get a 24MP foveon type sensor (real 24MP) I think now is the time I will sell my MF gear and forget about the different look, working with one camera for all sounds very tempting, especially because we travel around a lot, and dragging two complete sets can be very cumbersome (and expensive). But I will NEVER make that decision based on MP's alone.
I do wish to add that the D800(e) is a very fine camera, especially the Sony sensor looks very promising, but when I look at 100% crops we shot during a workshop in our studio I do find that fine details in hairs look a bit "chaotic" compared to the razor-sharp MF files, also even with the use of color checkers I can't get the colors in the neighborhood of the Leaf Aptus back, and skin tones are without a doubt the most important thing for me, so even when I would forget all the rest, for skin tones alone I would not think about switching.
But the future looks promising let's hope the technology also drips through to MF camera, I would love to have a system I can use up to ISO6400 (heck even 3200 would be great) with the same quality my 5DMKIII gives me, add some killer AF and I'm more than happy, but up until than I will choose the camera for each assignment, and for studio/strobe work at THE moment nothing beats my MF system.
Now one final thought.
Can I deliver all my commercial work with a DSLR.... ?
yep.
No problem at all, it will look different, I can use ND filters to "help" with the strobes outside, 22MP is more than enough for almost any publication.
So why invest in a MF system?
Simply put... because I want the best quality I can get, it's a personal opinion, if you just want to make money get a good pro level DSLR with a 24-75 and 70-200 lens, some good strobes and you can work forever with that, never needing to upgrade, they did with far worse in the 70's and 80's and the magazines haven't gotten bigger :D
If you however are driven by passion to deliver the absolute best out there and LOVE working the MF way, I think MF is the way to go for now.
In the end it's actually all a bit silly that we look at technique and forget about the thing that really counts.... getting the shot. And me personally I would rather get the shot on the very unprofessional "P" setting with Auto ISO and bracketing than not getting the shot :D (not to say that I do, but I think you get the general idea), maybe we are too obsessed by the numbers and forget the essence of photography... getting the shot.
-
1 fps for MF which is a great tempo to work with for for example fashion, this could be solved by firmware on a DSLR I know, but it isn't yet.
Not sure whether it helps, but Setting d2 enables you to select the maximum continuous shooting fps between 1 and 5 (see page 293 of .pdf manual).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is that option also on the new Nikons?
Would help some of my students, I know it's not in the Canon.
-
Is that option also on the new Nikons?
Would help some of my students, I know it's not in the Canon.
It has been there for a few years on the Nikon bodies.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great Will them that.
-
Is just me, or do the Nikon exposure in the Nikon v. 'Blad test linked above consistently seems to have greater exposure? Especially the kitchen still-life.
- N.
I agree. The Nikon shot of the biscuits is overexposed and the red channel is blown.
Regards,
Bill
-
Is just me, or do the Nikon exposure in the Nikon v. 'Blad test linked above consistently seems to have greater exposure? Especially the kitchen still-life.
- N.
Yes , it seems to me a bad test.
testing is not that easy- you have to do it right or not do it. (or at least not jump to conclusions after one little test.)
Also software is very important in the outcome. Especially the choice of a raw converter and the use of it.
The remarks about 'skin not looking right' is very complex one and can also have many causes apart from the camera.
If you work with a camera for a long time these issues usually get solved along the way.
-
testing is not that easy- you have to do it right or not do it. (or at least not jump to conclusions after one little test.)
I'm thankful for the tests people share but realize a test is most useful for the person doing them because they do it the way that makes sense in their shooting environment.
Ker's I read your comment as being a bit ungrateful. I hope you will now go out and rent a MF set up and a D800, do your own testing and publish it so we can all have a turn knocking your work too.
-
...Ker's I read your comment as being a bit ungrateful....
Sorry, you are right, I sounded a bit ungrateful…
In fact I am very pleased with all i can find on the d800 at the moment to get an idea what the camera is capable of.
On the other hand I see a lot of ' in between testing' and people jumping to conclusions to easy. It is a common problem on the internet: there is a lot of information, but a lot is not very valid or true- you have to filter yourself.
So doing tests myself with my stuff and comparing it with other peoples findings on the net i get some grip on valid information. For instance Diglloyd an Rob Galbraith are among those that have good information i find… That does not mean i agree with all their findings but i find them very trustworthy.
-
I guess it depends why you are doing a test. Many test seem about winning. And much of the criticism of tests seem about losing. Testing, at least in this context seems strange--all cameras take fine pictures, so what exactly is a test going to prove except the cameras take fine images.
Test don't have to have a level playing field, partly because it is impossible--there is going to be at least one factor that cannot be equal. But also because the evaluator can take that into consideration when looking at the results. Since image quality and how we use cameras is subjective, how can any test, at least the type of tests that show "real world" images, show anything conclusive about the camera. Of course "real world" test, or pretty picture tests, are fairly useless--unless you think the camera is the reason for the image to look good. Objective testing using targets is usually derided, but is really the only useful data. The problem is most photographers don't understand what they are seeing.
Does the D800 reach MF quality? I will let you know as soon as someone defines MF quality.
-
Does the D800 reach MF quality? I will let you know as soon as someone defines MF quality.
Medium Format Quality: the resolution, dynamic range, noise profile and colour fidelity produced by a given tranche of the MF market.
If one is speaking of the +- 40MP range of the MF market, the D800E matches it in resolution (though in generally less useful format - which will knock the D800 image down substantially in resolution in most final applications, if that matters), matches or exceeds it in dynamic range at base ISO (expose for the highlights carefully, recover the shadows), trounces MF on noise, and colour (?? can't say myself - think you need to profile your camera before you know).
So yes, frankly, the D800 does match MF quality.
- N.
-
Medium Format Quality: the resolution, dynamic range, noise profile and colour fidelity produced by a given tranche of the MF market.
If one is speaking of the +- 40MP range of the MF market, the D800E matches it in resolution (though in generally less useful format - which will knock the D800 image down substantially in resolution in most final applications, if that matters), matches or exceeds it in dynamic range at base ISO (expose for the highlights carefully, recover the shadows), trounces MF on noise, and colour (?? can't say myself - think you need to profile your camera before you know).
So yes, frankly, the D800 does match MF quality.
- N.
You left out look. Larger film/sensor areas yield a different look. Even if all the tech specs are better with the nikon d800, there is a look you can not match. It will be interesting to see what happens when all the phones have 40mp like the nokia and people are comparing their phone images to the D800. What's going to be left is look and character - and of course the shooter's creativity and technique or lack thereof.
-
You left out look. Larger film/sensor areas yield a different look.
Could you explain the very vague term "look" a bit more? Naively, the only two factors I see are (a) particular qualities of the lenses or lens systems, and (b) FOV/DOF effects.
Item (b) is almost entirely a matter of adjusting the choice of focal length and aperture ratio (to have the same effective aperture diameter, for example) ... except at close range, with magnification more than about 1/10. Item (a) is tricky: it seems like to depend on particular lens designs, or on the design approaches of entire lens systems, but very hard to pin down as intrinsically related to format size alone.
-
"Look."
If for the sake of illustrating the thing, you are willing to keep to film, then the difference in 'look' between 35mm and 120MF is fairly easy to see: it's all about tonality and also, in many cases, the lack of grain at similar enlargement sizes, but not exclusively so: you can also sometimes get grain from 120 where you can avoid it in smaller 35mm, depending on film type, but that tonality thing is still there.
I have no access to MF digital cameras, but I would think that the same sense of tonality difference will apply there: it's really a measure of how the essence of something is held or lost within the medium itself. If you've had experience of both formats in film, I'm fairly sure you can't avoid understanding the differences even if it's well-nigh impossile to articulate such a sensation.
Rob C
-
Could you explain the very vague term "look" a bit more?
This was something which was very, very obvious in film days. Then, it would have been easy to say that it was just a matter of grain (less of it in the MF neg) or resolution (more of it in the MF neg), but -
Swapping as I was from Pentax 35mm to Rollei MF and back again all the time in the wet darkroom, I became convinced there was just more to it than that. Somehow the transitions and subtleties of tone in the upper-mids and highlight areas were just so much nicer with the Rollei. Even James Ravillous' work with a Leica, lovely though it is (and I have stared very closely at his original prints) does not quite get there.
Now, this may not hold true with digital, particularly when the "grain" playing field has been levelled. I would like to see some prints (not web images, please) for comparison. Same subject, same light, same time.
John
-
Could you explain the very vague term "look" a bit more? Naively, the only two factors I see are (a) particular qualities of the lenses or lens systems, and (b) FOV/DOF effects.
Item (b) is almost entirely a matter of adjusting the choice of focal length and aperture ratio (to have the same effective aperture diameter, for example) ... except at close range, with magnification more than about 1/10. Item (a) is tricky: it seems like to depend on particular lens designs, or on the design approaches of entire lens systems, but very hard to pin down as intrinsically related to format size alone.
What follows is my understanding, as a photographer and not a scientist. I've shot documentary, fashion, beauty, and portraits for 25 years, on everything from 8x10 down to a Minox. My experience with these formats reveals a different look associated with film/sensor size, at a given distance and working within "normal" apatures for teh format. My experience is that 8x10 has a particular look because at a normal portrait distance you are always closer to macro type magnification/depth, which manifests itself in fall off, while the in focus area is very, very sharp. So take a normal lens for each format (300 for 8x10, 150mm for 4x5, 80mm for 645, 50mm for 35mm), frame for a portrait, practical F stop for typical light, and the larger formats will always have faster fall off contrasted with very sharp in focus areas. I don't know if this is a concern for landscape guys because it seems landscapers desire everything to be sharp, but for people, the larger formats and the fast falloff of larger formats can create a striking photo.
I think the Canon 85 1.2 and the 135 2 can get close, but it is different than say 4x5 of 8x10, or even 645 with an 80 1.9. It is more than just a wide aperture. If anyone can chime in who (a) can see a difference in look between formats and (b) has some physics to explain, please be my guest!
-
Medium Format Quality: the resolution, dynamic range, noise profile and colour fidelity produced by a given tranche of the MF market.
If one is speaking of the +- 40MP range of the MF market, the D800E matches it in resolution (though in generally less useful format - which will knock the D800 image down substantially in resolution in most final applications, if that matters), matches or exceeds it in dynamic range at base ISO (expose for the highlights carefully, recover the shadows), trounces MF on noise, and colour (?? can't say myself - think you need to profile your camera before you know).
So yes, frankly, the D800 does match MF quality.
- N.
So, would you also think a 24MP APS sensor matches a 35MM and a MFD sensor of similar resolution and such? Is this the end of format in imaging?
-
This was something which was very, very obvious in film days. Then, it would have been easy to say that it was just a matter of grain (less of it in the MF neg) or resolution (more of it in the MF neg), but -Swapping as I was from Pentax 35mm to Rollei MF and back again all the time in the wet darkroom, I became convinced there was just more to it than that. Somehow the transitions and subtleties of tone in the upper-mids and highlight areas were just so much nicer with the Rollei. Even James Ravillous' work with a Leica, lovely though it is (and I have stared very closely at his original prints) does not quite get there.
Now, this may not hold true with digital, particularly when the "grain" playing field has been levelled. I would like to see some prints (not web images, please) for comparison. Same subject, same light, same time.
John
As I indicated in my post just above yours here, it is more than granularity with film: a difference exists because of the way that the same captured and reproduced information is held over a larger surface area. This, apart from hiding or minimising grain, holds more of a real sense of the original surface being shown as photograph.
As an extension of that, I would imagine that were one to make a similar size of image on both formats, say FP4 in both 35mm and 120, both images covering no more than a 24mmx36mm piece of the film with the same portion of the original subject, the subsequent enlargements of that same area would be identical. In other words, it’s the size of enlargement that makes the difference, not the film (where the same stock type is used in both formats). I don’t believe that lens differences will make a printable difference unless you bring Leica M into the equation, because I’ve seen the difference between those lenses and Nikon in my own developing tray!
To make this even more obvious, a contact print from a well produced 8”x10” negative will show that quality far more clearly than an 8”x10” print from either 120 or 35mm (of the same subject). But the reasons remain the same.
Why am I spending time writing this, John? You know it already, and anyone who doesn’t through lack of experience is probably too late now to get it first hand anymore...
(I do wish that WalterEG would come in here: if anyone has, he has the practical experience in spades.)
Rob C
-
So far I have only seen very unscientific or quick tests to compare the new Nikon and a similar mp MF camera.
Have you all seen any good comparisons? Can someone who have both thesesystems do one?
Henrik
-
So, would you also think a 24MP APS sensor matches a 35MM and a MFD sensor of similar resolution and such? Is this the end of format in imaging?
I think that "matching" is too broad because it encompasses resolution, color, look, etc, but for prints, I think its close. I think what is left is the "look" of a larger sensor. I own a back, and I will say that the X100, in terms of color and tone, is close. That thing is an APS C camera. The D7000 is really close as well. Again, the look is different than from 35mm full fram, and different against from cropped 645. I am speaking generally, I haven't tested and I don't think I will, but that is certainly my impression.
That being said, how much is that "look" worth? The cost of a rental on a project? $30,000? It all depends on what you shoot, as we all know. There are exceptions to all general rules, and what I think th D800 has done is to change the general rule to mean: the D800 matches MFD, rather than the 35mm dslrs can get close to MFD but not there yet. The exceptions to the new rule follow: Not in terms of look, not in terms of the larer and new 645 sensors, not for all types of photography, and the list goes on. And again, this is just my observation. I could be wrong, sure, and I mean no ill will. After all, I can't part with by Aptus 75s, even thougfh I haven't used it seriously in years.
-
As I indicted in my post just above yours here, it is more than granularity with film: a difference exists because of the way that the same captured and reproduced information is held over a larger surface area. This, apart from hiding or minimising grain, holds more of a real sense of the original surface being shown as photograph.
Rob C and John R Smith,
Your comments about grain and tonality with film in different formats seem to have a lot to do with the fact that the same film emulsions are used in different formats, and then printed with different degrees of enlargement. That of course means that effects on the print of grain, resolution, accutance and so on vary with the format, and also the effective dynamic ange and fineness of tonal gradations is increased by the greater "dithering" caused by printing at a lower degree of enlargement from a larger negative.
This comparison must at very least be revisited when instead the different formats are using photosites of different sizes and also of quite different capabilities in terms of light sensitivity and noise levels. It might well be for example than when the larger format has the same pixel count, and worse dynamic range and a higher noise floor despite its larger pixels, that all those advantages of finer grain and finer tonal gradations go away ... or are ever reversed due to the "per pixel" technical advantages of the best CMOS sensors compared to the CCD technology of current medium format sensors.
TMARK: I am not completely sure what you mean by "faster fall-off", but it sounds like fall-off in sharpness due to out-of-focus effects, as one would get when using aout the same f-stop in different formats. And that roughly equal f-stop is what one would get when using the same film emulsion of the same speed and wanting to get about the same shutter speed. But as I indicated in my previous post, that is not really inherent to the format, and can generally be compensated for, if desired, by adjusting the f-stop in proportion to focal length and linear format size. Note that the lenses for 35mm format usually offer lower minimum f-stops than those for larger formats, so comparing at equal f-stop is not in general justified.
-
So, would you also think a 24MP APS sensor matches a 35MM and a MFD sensor of similar resolution and such? Is this the end of format in imaging?
That comparison is quite different, because the APS-C and 35mm format cameras use similar photosite technology, whereas in the comparison between current 35mm and MF cameras, there is a large and growing gap between the sensor technologies, especially between the Sony/Nikon version of CMOS and the CCDs of MF.
-
I believe that with larger formats, for a given FOV, you are always closer to 1-1 repro size, which gives a different look, and that look, aside from tonality, is the rapid focus fall off contrasted with extreme sharpness. I haven't been able to replicate 8x10 portraits with a 35mm system, using Nikon 85 1.4 or Canon 85 and 50 1.2. They are close but not the same. There is something to this, and I'm sure someone on this board can explain it in technical terms.
Talking about 8x10 and 4x5 is at the extremes, because what we are really talking about is either 35mm FF or at most 645. There is a difference, but not as great as 4x5 versus 35mm. Maybe I'll get around to shooting a comparo between the Aptus 75s and the D800. The Aptus I would use the RZ 110 2.8, and the Nikon the 85 1.4. Don't hold your breath! It can't be high on my to do list, but if I get a chance I will.
-
1. The transition from sharp to unsharp depends on the maginification. In case of a portrait the head is biggest on 8x10 inch film. The smaller the format the smaller the head on the film/sensor. You are completely right that 8x10 is already in the macro world if you take a portrait, even with a full length shot you are at about 1:7 (25 cm on film, 175 cm the real person). With 35 mm you are at 1:50 (3.6 cm on film, 175 cm the real person). Consequently the dof in case of 8x10 is almost symmetrical around your focal plane. In case of 35 mm you have the 1/3 to 2/3 rule: dof is 1/3 in front of the focal plane 2/3 behind. The further the distance of the subject the less difference in magnification. Everything further away than 15 meter should look pretty identical on 8x10 and 35 mm if you have the same resolution. Everything between 1 and 10 meter should look pretty different. Even if you use corresponding f-stops you should see the effect - and I can see it. Corresponding f-stops are the f-stops which leed to "similar" dof, but the distribution of the dof in front and behind the focal plane is different (diagonal of 8x10 / diagonal of 35 mm is approximately f-stop 8x10 / f-stop 35 mm, numbers 300:43,3 = 5.6/0.8, that means if you use an f-stop of 5.6 with an 8x10 inch camera you would need 0.8 with 35 mm —> Noctilux).
Isn't that the phenomena that Nikkor DC portrait lenses is trying to reproduce?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that with larger formats, for a given FOV, you are always closer to 1-1 repro size, which gives a different look ...
That is only of much significance in the close-up range, where that the magnification is more than about 1:20 (this is the typical guideline in optics literature for when the simple optical guidelines for comparing DOF and such between formats break-down.) It is not going to be a relevant difference between MF and smaller formats at ranges more than a few feet.
[EDIT: jsch explains some of this too; I add that when the larger format is DMF instead of 10"x8", the threshold distance for being "pretty identical" is reduced in proportion, to about 2 meters. But do not take the "1/3 of DOF in front, 2/3 behind" literally: the specific numbers are meaningless as they depend on many factors, and the statement is just an indication that "more is acceptably in focus behind the plane of exact focus than in front".]
Also, another effect of format differences is that it makes spherical aberrations (and aberrations in general) at equal f-stop worse in larger formats, because light passing though near the outer edges of the aperture is reaching the lens further from the center, and so the angular variation between the paths of different rays from the same part of the subject is greater. That is, the incoming cone of light gathered from each point of the subject has a wider angle. (The strength of various aberrations vary in proportion to various powers of this angle.) In fact, in partial contrast to what jsch says, a simple linear scaling down of a lens design to get one for a smaller format covering the same FOV and with equal minimum f-stop gives less aberrations at equal f-stop due to these reduced angular variations.
On the other hand, when one uses a proportionately lower f-stop in the smaller format, for example to get equal DOF or equal shutter speed at the lower ISO speed usable in the smaller format, then the range of incoming angles is equal, so that disadvantage of the larger formats goes away, and the lower minimum f-stop designs probably require more careful correction.
And yet again: with equal FOV in different formats, and far enough from the subject that the magnification is less than about 1/20 (i.e., subject distance about 20 times focal length or more) the transition from sharp to unsharp is determined almost entirely by the effective aperture diameter (entrance pupil diameter), which is the ratio of focal length to f-stop. Format size has almost no inherent relevance to this except in "close-ups". Please search out and consult any of numerous sources on lens optics, such has online lecture notes from various reputable universities, if you need a detailed explanation of that.
-
Nikon is getting a lot of well deserved attention over the D800(E); however, it seems that Sony is really the company responsible for the progress. Any thoughts on where this sensor and any larger variants may appear?
-
I'm going to stay agnostic on the "look" question, because I used to believe it to be true, but an starting to doubt.
However, I will say this: the Fuji X-Pro1 delivered files - in out-of-camera jpeg, with better skin tones than any other camera I've recently used. And I am not the only one to have noticed this.
Now, I didn't buy the camera (yet) for a variety of reasons unrelated to image quality. However, it has proven to me that technological advances in both sensor design and processing are fundamentally altering the rules of what is visually possible from smaller sensors.
Scaled-up, the Fuji X-trans would blow anything else away (at the moment).
- N.
-
Any thoughts on where this sensor and any larger variants may appear?
My thoughts are that:
- This sensor (or a close cousin) is likely to appear in a new Sony SLT model later this year, as has been indicated by Sony. If so, that will effectively confirm that Sony is no longer making cameras with optical vewfinders.
- In the longer term, such a sensor might appear in a Leica product, but not in an M body anytime soon, because Leica officials have explicitly said in a recent interview (reported in BJP and elsewhere) that it is staying with Kodak/Truesense CCD sensors for the M bodies.
- There will almost certainly not be any larger variant: Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic and other CMOS sensor designers and makers have shown absolutely no interest in the relatively tiny market for sensors for DMF, and with cameras like the D800(E) eating a bit more into the former market for formats larger than 36x24mm, any such move into those larger formats is even less likely now than before.
Of course, I am not absolutely ruling out a larger CMOS sensor suitable for DMF, but judge it very unlikely. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we will probably have to wait a few years for confirmation, much as was agreed in another thread. I expect this to evolve as with the formerly frequent speculations about Canon or Nikon launching new systems in a format larger than 35mm: those dreams seem to have been abandoned.
-
..............Of course, I am not absolutely ruling out a larger CMOS sensor suitable for DMF, but judge it very unlikely. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we will probably have to wait a few years for confirmation, much as was agreed in another thread. ....................
Yes, I think we still have 4 years and 11 months to wait on that bet. :D
Given the progress in CMOS sensors why would Leica remain with CCDs?
-
Given the progress in CMOS sensors why would Leica remain with CCDs?
That is an interesting question, especially coming in a press conference where Leica people also talked about advantages of CMOS, described them as the way of the future, and the fact that Leica is using Sony CMOS sensors in its smaller format, fixed lens X1 and X2 models.
My first guess is that this is because there is a substantial investment involved in changing all the support electronics and firmware around the sensor, which with the relatively low unit sales of the M series adds significantly to the price, and so Leica is at least moving slowly on any shift to a radically new type of sensor. But there could also be philosophical factors slowing things down. For example, I can imagine that Leica insists on continuing the pure approach of having no OLP filter, and will not accept the strange approach of the D800E, which in turn might be the only option for now because of the way that those sensors are manufactured (needing the second OLPF sheet bonded to the sensor?)
Four years and eleven months should be enough time for them to solve all the engineering challenges though!
-
Agreed, that timeframe should be more than enough. Perhaps quite soon we'll see a CMOS Leica M:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2174163/leica-hints-video-features-upcoming-m10
In the same article they mention True Sense as their preferred sensor supplier.
The upcoming S3 is also rumored to have CMOS, which would make a lot of sense IMHO.
-
The upcoming S3 is also rumored to have CMOS, which would make a lot of sense IMHO.
If true, that would make it the first MFD unit with CMOS*. Which would be terrific, if it gets the CMOS ball rolling with the other manufacturers.
Ray
*Yair, before you interject - I know about the Leaf C-MOST back....but that sensor wasn't larger than 35mm format. (And it was noisier than the 35mm format CCDs of the day)
-
Perhaps quite soon we'll see a CMOS Leica M:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2174163/leica-hints-video-features-upcoming-m10
In the same article they mention True Sense as their preferred sensor supplier.
Truesense Imaging (the former Kodak sensor division) only makes CCDs, not CMOS sensors: that is why I concluded that there is no CMOS M camera coming in the foreseeable future. I seriously doubt that a custom 30x45mm (or larger) CMOS sensor would be designed and made for the very low volume Leica S series; even less so than for the M, where Leica has for now ruled out a CMOS sensor.
-
Truesense Imaging (the former Kodak sensor division) only makes CCDs ...
Yes, that's why I mentioned them because I can not combine the Leica management statement about Truesense Imaging being the sensor supplier on the one hand and the video rumors on the other. Oh well, we'll see in a couple of months, or not...
-
Scaled-up, the Fuji X-trans would blow anything else away (at the moment).
Based on what's been shown with the XPro-1, if Fuji takes it's experience making medium format, their experience making Hasselblad lenses, makes that XPro-1 sensor larger (especially with it's high iso capability) and makes a medium format camera it could change the face of mfd and leave Hassie and Phase One, and maybe even Leica, in the dust.