The mp "war"... which side are you on?

[Theodoros]

One side says: The more the better and that one can print larger.
Other side says: The smaller the pixel, the less friendly the back is with movements and the more prone to artifacts becomes....

Which side are you on?

I'm with the second as I believe that quality beats quantity and we already have more than the quantity we need....

[Ken R]

One side says: The more the better and that one can print larger.
Other side says: The smaller the pixel, the less friendly the back is with movements and the more prone to artifacts becomes....

Which side are you on?

I'm with the second as I believe that quality beats quantity and we already have more than the quantity we need....

I would like to see a wide range of CMOS products. I think there is room for a much more affordable 30MP CMOS back for those who want the Phase One back versatility and awesome workflow but do not require a huge amount of MP (like those who do higher volume imagery). The new IQ3 100mp pretty much covers the high end and the IQ3 50mp the mid range (a lower price is always welcome). Any sensor changes or developments that improve tech camera performance are more than welcome. But I understand that Phase wants to, understandably, push the XF system (which is superb) so I would not expect any sensor changes that improve performance with tech cam lenses, although the 100mp seems to have some compared to the 50mp back. I was pleasantly surprised by this.

I would simplify the product line and remove leaf (Phase can provide color profiles for the"Leaf Look") and just offer the IQ line in several flavors (kinda like they do now) but at a much lower starting price point for CMOS backs. Of the CCD backs I would only retain the 60mp one since the 100mp really replaces the 80mp in the product line. The 60mp CCD back works amazingly well with the tech cam lenses and provides the best balance of resolution and tech lens compatibility of all the backs. 

[JV]

I would like to see a wide range of CMOS products. I think there is room for a much more affordable 30MP CMOS back for those who want the Phase One back versatility and awesome workflow but do not require a huge amount of MP (like those who do higher volume imagery).

+1.  I don't believe we will ever see that from Phase One though...

[eronald]

Who said "at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own" ?
I would prefer more color bands than 3, and more DR to more pixels.

Edmund

One side says: The more the better and that one can print larger.
Other side says: The smaller the pixel, the less friendly the back is with movements and the more prone to artifacts becomes....

Which side are you on?

I'm with the second as I believe that quality beats quantity and we already have more than the quantity we need....

[cyron123]

Hello,
I would very happy with a low resolution system too. Like 30-40mpix. But with cmos and very good technical camera compatibility.
In my opinion there is a huge difference between mid format quality and dslr cameras at same pixel count.
The entry level of digital backs should be lower. There are a lot of private users for lower price digital backs. But this is my personal opinion.
Cyron

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Making a large size sensor with large size pixels costs as much as a same size sensor witch optimal size pixels. So that means doubling development costs for the sensor.

For that reason, it is not very probable that we would see large sensors with large pixels. What we see is that pixel size is kept nearly constant IQ-250 5.3 micron, IQ-3100MP 4.5 micron, Sony A7rII 4.5 micron. Rumors say that the A7s sensor is coming from movie camera. In motion devices image size is essentially given by formats like HD and UHD. Also, high ISOs are normally seen as beneficial.

So, what I think we will see that affordable, low resolution sensors will not have smaller pixels but smaller sensor size.

For high ISO performance, larger pixel sizes are more optimal and we indeed see large pixel devices like the Sony A7s (8.4 microns) and the Nikon D4s (7.3 microns). But, I don't think the major focus of MFD is high ISO photography.

It may be possible to do downsampling in camera firmware, so raw file size could be selected.

This article is pretty old, but discusses the effect of design rules on the optimal pixel size. Pixel designs have been much simplified in recent years, so I guess the actual figures are a bit out of date. http://isl.stanford.edu/~abbas/group/papers_and_pub/pixelsize.pdf

This article talks a little bit about modern sensors, note that the electrical design is pretty much reduced, and essentially surrounds the pixels.

The discussion here is no proof of anything, but helpfully offers some insight on evolution of pixel sizes.

Best regards
Erik

+1.  I don't believe we will ever see that from Phase One though...

[torger]

In my opinion there is a huge difference between mid format quality and dslr cameras at same pixel count.

Unfortunately I don't think many share this view, and even if they do it's not reflected in their buying behavior. Medium format is dependent on providing higher pixel counts than whatever is provided in the smaller formats. It's what medium format does. At some point it must level out, but I think we're not there yet.

Huge file sizes can be a mess when you don't need them but a better solution than low pixel counts is sensor+ type of things.

My big thing is that I miss the situation where you could choose a digital back that was designed to handle symmetrical wide angle lenses. The Kodak I'm using has both light shielded pixels (minimizes crosstalk) and lacks microlenses (minimizes artifacts such as ripple). I think the pixel size today could be made smaller than the 6um and still retain the same properties, possibly 100 MP sensor would work just fine. However one needs to face the fact that tech cams are now dinosaurs, it's not likely that a sensor will ever be designed for that again, especially since light shields and removing microlenses will surely lead to tradeoffs in ISO performance and possibly DR and aliasing.

What will happen is that CCD products will be soon all discontinued (due to poor sales), there will be a continued increase in megapixels, and entry level products are based on 44x33mm crops of the full-frame sensor. We won't see larger sensors than 645 fullframe.

I still have a small hope that BSI/stack sensors as a side effect can make tech wides work well again but it may be too late when that arrives.

In the long term I want very high pixel counts as I think the optics should be a limiting factor and I want my images 100% aliasing free. The lowest pixel count I'd like to have today is about 60MP. Very low counts is an aliasing mess.

[Theodoros]

 However one needs to face the fact that tech cams are now dinosaurs, it's not likely that a sensor will ever be designed for that again, especially since light shields and removing microlenses will surely lead to tradeoffs in ISO performance and possibly DR and aliasing.

Anders, the fact that tech cameras had very low market penetration up until recently, is more related to their size with respect to image sensor size since the vast majority of them where coming from the film era and where designed for 4x5 image area... Other than that, the poor LV (if any) performance of the CCD backs added to their unfriendly appeal... If an MFDB with good LV performance would exist that would be as friendly as (say for example purposes) the Kodak 39 or 50mp CCD backs, the appeal of the tech cameras would have been much greater than they where during the past years...

Look at the Cambo Actus or of the Arca Universallis market success... It's not because of the low cost (compared to an MFDB) of the Sony α7 that the market accepted them so highly, it's more because the α7 added good quality LV and could work with an existing base of MF lenses.... The reason why their MFDB versions have a much lower market penetration, is not the cost of the MFDB (compared to the Sony) either... It's rather because the (recent) MFDBs that offer good LV are not as good with movements as the CCD ones of the past.... I'm sure that if one could share his MFDB between his tech camera and his MF platform and could have he flexibility that the Sony provides, he would add a tech camera to his system as to multiply the tasks that he may perform... all that with no additional cost other that the tech camera body since the MFDB would exist anyway with the MF platform... The situation is similar to the one that dominated the market at the later years of the film era, where people where adding 6X9 and 6X7 120 film backs on their tech cameras.

Another problem with tech cameras is the lens interfaces provided... People would love to have only one lens line and share it between their tech camera and their MF platform at the same time... but given that modern lenses have electronic aperture control, the lenses are not compatible with the tech cameras (unless if the makers offer compatible lens boards with interface communication). Image circle wouldn't be a problem with 37x49 size sensors as MF lenses are made for 6x4.5 image areas and even have wider circle tolerance, but many MF lenses out there are of 6X6 or larger image areas too... and of course 24mm lenses with large image circle are widely available now both out of all MF makers but from FF DSLR makers too...

A third problem that exists with tech cameras (the Actus and the universallis too) is that one has to convert the camera as to change between mirrorless use and MFDB use... Normally, a photographer would like to just detach the MFDB and attach the mirrorless instead or vise versa...

If all the above problems will be solved with tech cameras, the maker that will enjoy very high sales indeed as it will be easy for people to integrate a tech camera in their existing systems and then... the MF makers would be enforced to offer at least one MFDB in their line which will be friendly with movements... just my two cents.

[synn]

The reason why their MFDB versions have a much lower market penetration

...is that there are far fewer MFDBs and MFDB users around compared to 35mm cameras and users, as it has been since the dawn of time.

[Christoph B.]

To me the sensor surface and pixel size are more important than ultra-high MP.

I doubt that most of 'us' went MFDB because of the resolution, 35mm isn't that far behind in that aspect (well now with the 100mp back they are again - but not by that much), but because of the colour fidelity and the look of the bigger sensor, shallower DoF (if needed/wanted).

Personally I'd like to see bigger sensors, maybe 6x7 - even if it's "only" CCD; a 6x7 sensor with 60-80mpx would be perfect!

[Theodoros]

...is that there are far fewer MFDBs and MFDB users around compared to 35mm cameras and users, as it has been since the dawn of time.

Market penetration of tech cameras has nothing to do with mirrorless penetration... usually the people that  actively use a view/tech camera already own a digital MF system... They use it with the mirrorless only because of the good  LV quality that their back lucks, in fact the mirrorless is used as an MFDB because of the functionality of it (luck of mirrorbox, shutter provision, LV) that their MFDB lucks... However, people that don't have any relation what so ever, or have never used a view camera are also allowed to have an (expert) opinion as how the owners use it... it's a free world...

[synn]

Indeed, it's a free world.
Which is why people with zero marketing experience give expert opinions here on how companies should do price positioning and market their products.

[Theodoros]

Indeed, it's a free world.
Which is why people with zero marketing experience give expert opinions here on how companies should do price positioning and market their products.

Sure... that too.... thanks for reminding us that I additionally forgot to mention this....

[vjbelle]

Hi,

Making a large size sensor with large size pixels costs as much as a same size sensor witch optimal size pixels. So that means doubling development costs for the sensor.

For that reason, it is not very probable that we would see large sensors with large pixels. What we see is that pixel size is kept nearly constant IQ-250 5.3 micron, IQ-3100MP 4.5 micron, Sony A7rII 4.5 micron. Rumors say that the A7s sensor is coming from movie camera. In motion devices image size is essentially given by formats like HD and UHD. Also, high ISOs are normally seen as beneficial.

Best regards
Erik

Ideally for me I would have preferred a FF 50-60MP CMOS back.  I found with my 50MP CMOS back that I was able to get surprising detail for a 40 inch print (my norm).  I'm used to seeing this at the 80MP range so I was pleasantly surprised.  The biggest problem for me now with the 100MP back is diffraction.  All of my Schneider Digitar lenses 100mm and under are f10-f13 bound.  Beyond f13 and the image suffers from the beginnings of diffraction and under f10 and the lens starts to underperform.  Longer lenses can be shot at f8 but with razor thin DOF. 

Victor

[Theodoros]

Hi,

.......Making a large size sensor with large size pixels costs as much as a same size sensor witch optimal size pixels. So that means doubling development costs for the sensor.
For that reason, .............

I'm not sure I understand this...  what is doubling the development costs? ...additionally, what is an "optimal" size pixel and who defines it? ...Do you care to explain?

As far as I know, Leica and Sinar are the only ones that have set a "red line" with the minimum size of pixel they use (at 6μm) and seem to keep it despite the sensor size... I would trust their judgement better than other makers, since they are the most experienced ones in imaging among all makers with proven and continuous contribution to quality as well as being famous to be satisfied of nothing but the best with respect to competition...

[sailronin]

I cast my vote with my wallet, selling my trusty Hasselblad 501 w/ CFV50 back and buying a Leica S (006) at "only" 37mp but 6um pitch. As I rarely enlarge beyond 16x20" the overall mp count does little to entice me.

[Chris Barrett]

Look at the Cambo Actus or of the Arca Universallis market success... It's not because of the low cost (compared to an MFDB) of the Sony α7 that the market accepted them so highly, it's more because the α7 added good quality LV and could work with an existing base of MF lenses....

Totally, Theodoros.  If you regularly work with a view/tech camera.  The shift of going from dark images on a groundglass to Live View that allows 100% zoom is absolutely huge.  It has been the single biggest improvement to my overall on set workflow in the last 20 years.  Seriously.  I'm playing with the IQ3 100 a little more today, testing my Blad glass.  Having decent live view is the only reason I would ever consider this back.  I just wish zooming in and navigating a 100% image was as quick as the Sony.

-CB

[razrblck]

I fall on the camera and "look" side, not the pixel count.

Same here. I'm always looking to improve my style and I'm slowly building a set of gear that suits it and my way of shooting. It's not what others suggest me all the time (like "why are you still using that ancient D200?" and such), but I don't care. I just made a print on canvas 70x30cm and everyone seemed very pleased with it. I sure am pleased with it!

As for the Leica S line, I do like the images I've seen come off from those. When I was at the lab today they showed me a couple of recent prints from an S2 and it had really nice out of focus elements as well as very sharp and defined details (the EXIF showed the 70mm at f/9). Unfortunately the name attached to the camera keeps the used prices way out of my poor, poor hands. But it's a goal I'm working towards. Most of my shots are between ISO 100 and 200 anyway, I even shoot film all the way down to 25, so for what I do I never needed high ISO performance. I only need a camera that has characteristics that are pleasant to me and doesn't get in the way of my shots.

[Chris Barrett]

...and only wish this forum was less gear centric and more about the photograph.

Oh gawd yes.  People will go on and on about signal to noise ratios and barely be able to say more than 'I like that...' about the actual work.  Man, I love me some gear, but at the end of the day I just want to make beautiful photographs and have people 'get' them.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you shoot at apertures like f/11 and f/16 you will still benefit from smaller pixels, say going from 6.0 micron to 4.8 microns. What happens is that the MTF of the sensor is improved, and the MTF of a system is the product of the MTF of it's components (*). So if you improve MTF of a single component it will improve the MTF of the whole system.

Some posters say that multishot systems give much better images. Hasselblad's multishot systems can actually yield 200 MP images, by moving the sensor half a pixel between exposures.

Now, if you look at 200 MP image at actual pixels on screen, it will be much softer than the corresponding 50 MP image, but you see it at twice the magnification.

Very clearly, 20-50 MP images are great for prints up to say 20"x30" images, going beyond that more resolution may be beneficial.

Now, the argument could be made that the lens/sensor combination should be balanced, that is the sensor should be able to resolve what the lens can deliver. In that sense it is quite obvious that smaller sensors like APS-C or 4/3 can deliver excellent results at 16-24 MP. So, I would say that if those pixels are not needed, it makes a lot of sense to go for a small sensor.

The main benefit from large pixels over small pixels comes into play when shooting very high ISO-s. Large pixels have an advantage in DR, but sensor technology compensates for this. It seems that the Sony sensor used in the IQ3-100MP delivers more than 14 EV of DR on a single pixel, an engineering first.

Engineering DR essentially tells about the noise floor. It says how much you can push shadows. Or you can underexpose to protect highlights and still have decent noise/detail in the darks.

Best regards
Erik

(*) That is not entirely true, some conditions need to be met with which I am not familiar. But I feel it is a good rule of thumb.

Ideally for me I would have preferred a FF 50-60MP CMOS back.  I found with my 50MP CMOS back that I was able to get surprising detail for a 40 inch print (my norm).  I'm used to seeing this at the 80MP range so I was pleasantly surprised.  The biggest problem for me now with the 100MP back is diffraction.  All of my Schneider Digitar lenses 100mm and under are f10-f13 bound.  Beyond f13 and the image suffers from the beginnings of diffraction and under f10 and the lens starts to underperform.  Longer lenses can be shot at f8 but with razor thin DOF. 

Victor