Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras  (Read 14481 times)

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« on: September 30, 2016, 07:56:47 am »

Shakespeare said “Parting is such sweet sorrow,” and change comes in strange ways. It was a surprise for me to find the X1D, this harbinger of change, coming from the somewhat conservative Hasselblad, a small mirrorless Medium Format (MF) camera at an almost affordable price. As they say, “Who woulda’ thunk it.” But there it is, out there and almost delivered. More surprising yet was the fact that one day I found myself pushing the button to buy one! For me this took (and is taking) selling a LOT of equipment that I still might use, but probably can get along without.

Why I consider this as perhaps the tip of the iceberg of change in my camera world is something many may not agree with, but it can’t hurt to discuss it. And a lot of it stems from my basic ignorance of MF cameras. It is true that I once had a MF camera (Mamiya RZ67 with a 33 Mpx digital back), but I can’t say that I ever really learned (loved) the system or got that much out of it, aside from getting myself out of it. The interface of the digital back was too primitive at the time for me to put up with. And the lenses (I had eleven of them) were not THAT great, aside perhaps from a couple of them.

Anyway, I have been chomping at the bit for a year or so, waiting for Nikon to stop pussyfooting around and deliver me a high-end mirrorless camera or at least the successor to the D810, one with a 50 Mpx sensor, and preferably 75 Mpx. We all know that has not happened yet, with no hint of when it might take place. For my purposes, Nikon has gone AWOL, IMO.

I suppose I should have seen the writing on the wall when Sony came out with the A7s, a camera with a FF sensor, mostly of interest to video buffs, since each photosite gathers 2.8x more light than the Nikon D810 sensor. The A7s has a pixel pitch of something like 8.32 microns, 71% higher than the pixel pitch of the D810, which is 4.87 µm. However, the size of the Sony A7s sensor was only 12.2 Mpx, while I needed a much larger (in pixels) sensor for my work, so I did not keep it. However, what was beautiful about the A7s is that it had the larger pixel pitch like we find in Medium Format cameras and sensors. It was a sign of things to come for me, but I didn’t grasp it at the time.

Throwing these numbers around only goes so far,  because newer sensor are more efficient and generally “better” overall, so a new sensor with a smaller pixel pitch may out perform an older sensor with a larger pixel pitch, etc.

As to why I consider the Hasselblad X1D so significant turns on a mistake that I apparently have been making, the idea that a 50 Mpx sensor on the Nikon system would equal a 50 Mpx sensor on a MF system, as far as the quality of the image. Of course, a 50 Mpx sensor on a 35 mm sensor would have to be squeezed into a smaller sensor than on a MF sensor, which are by nature larger, like 44 mm or higher.

Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.

For a while I made the conceptual mistake of thinking I would wait for Nikon to pony-up with a D820 (or some number) camera with a 50 Mpx (or greater) sensor. And I assumed that 50 Mpx on a Nikon would somehow equal 50 Mpx on a Hasselblad, etc.  Of course, for the Nikon to continue to be a 35 mm FF camera, a Nikon D820 FF sensor would always have less light-gathering power than an X1D sensor of an equal generation. This was a simple, but stupid mistake on my part.

The reason the X1D is so earth shaking for me is that if this is true, then I see my whole interest in FF DSLRs (not to mention scores of lenses) going out the window and I clearly see that the advent of Medium Format cameras (eventually affordable and small) is coming of age and the X1D is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to wait for Nikon to respond with a larger FF 35mm with more pixels, because the light-gathering abilities will only continue to shrink as the FF sensor size increases. Unless Nikon issues their own medium-format camera to compete with Hasselblad, in some ways I am done with Nikon except as a way to feature my classic F-mount lenses.

Of course, since I have so many Nikon-mount lenses, I am not about to abandon the brand, but it will have to move to the back burner and be used to feature those particular lenses that I value which work on that mount. Which brings me to my point:

The Hasselblad X1D is not just an anomaly, but the tip of the top of a new wave of “affordable” medium-format cameras that will be compelling in their ability to take some of us forward into the future of our photography. Not everyone will care, but if I know the market, the virtues of the MF quality will gradually insert itself into the minds and hearts of FF photographers and we will be converted.

Providing that the X1D performs, you can count me among the already converted. Of course, I look to the day when I can use my Zeiss Oti lenses on a MF camera. Perhaps the new Fuji MF camera will have a solid adapter that will accomplish that. Meanwhile, to the best of my ability, I see this new generation of small MF cameras not only inevitable, but also compelling.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2016, 08:44:21 am »

Interesting, however:
- the difference in sensor size is IMHO not sufficient to bother,
- although it is tempting, I am not sold yet on this generation of EVFs, in my view the technology is still in its infancy, like 4K TVs 4 years ago if you will,
- the lenses, although probably very good, aren't very likely to be in Oti territory in terms of image quality and focusing experience, and they obviously offer a lot less DoF control options (but I guess less DoF isn't a major objective of yours),
- I would not read too much into the lack of Nikon annoucement at the Kina.

This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...

Cheers,
Bernard

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2016, 08:51:14 am »


This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...

Cheers,
Bernard

I hear ya'. I might sell the Otus 85mm, but not the 28mm and 55mm. Not sure about the 135mm Almost-Otus. It is nice to see Nikon (105mm, f/1.4) producing outstanding lenses again. Wish it was also macro. I like the small format size of the X1D and can get my feet wet there. Also, new, small MF lenses for the X1D appeal to me. Whatever the case, this is probably a sea-change for my work. I still have my D810 to play with and far too many lenses, not to mention technical cameras and LF lenses, etc.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2016, 09:17:27 am by Michael Erlewine »
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2016, 09:53:45 am »

X1D - 'affordable'. Hmm. No, sorry, does not compute.

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2016, 09:57:42 am »

Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.

Hi Michael,

If you shoot on a tripod with good technique and lighting, both cameras will perform about the same as far as SNR is concerned when set up equivalently (see here for why).  Where a larger format typically has the advantage is in linear spatial resolution (i.e. detail, see here for why).  The X1D's diagonal is about 27% longer than the D810's.  But the D810's pixels are about 8% smaller on the side, so let's cheat and say that the D810's lenses need to be about 20% 'sharper' than the 'blad's in order to capture images of the same resolution when displayed at the same size.

That's not bad, but not an earth shaking difference (for instance there is a bigger difference going from APS-C to FF), so it all boils down to the lenses.  You have some outstanding FF lenses there and I don't know what MF lenses your budget would afford you - but it would behoove you to find out that they would be an improvement on what you have before committing.

Jack
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2016, 10:59:34 am »

Hi Michael,

If you shoot on a tripod with good technique and lighting, both cameras will perform about the same as far as SNR is concerned when set up equivalently (see here for why).  Where a larger format typically has the advantage is in linear spatial resolution (i.e. detail, see here for why).  The X1D's diagonal is about 27% longer than the D810's.  But the D810's pixels are about 8% smaller on the side, so let's cheat and say that the D810's lenses need to be about 20% 'sharper' than the 'blad's in order to capture images of the same resolution when displayed at the same size.

That's not bad, but not an earth shaking difference (for instance there is a bigger difference going from APS-C to FF), so it all boils down to the lenses.  You have some outstanding FF lenses there and I don't know what MF lenses your budget would afford you - but it would behoove you to find out that they would be an improvement on what you have before committing.

Jack

There is another factor running here, and that is that now that I am retired, I want to travel some. The Hasselblad X1D, with its (about to be) three lenses is compact enough that I could see my taking it on the road and keeping my accumulation of Nikon-mount related stuff for home and studio use. I like what Ming Thein can do with the Hasselblads and he states that the quality is the same with the X1D, so unless there is a big let-down, this could be the perfect system to take on the road and also branch out from just doing nature close-ups. I also have ordered the the lens adapter for some of the larger/older lenses as well as already purchased the main Hasselblad macro lens, which I may or may not take with me.

But right now, learning more portrait and landscape photography sound liberating. And being older now, time is of the essence, as in: now.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2016, 12:00:44 pm »

You want the Nikkor 105 f/1.4 to be a 1:1 MACRO? Gee, you don't ask for much.... ;)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2016, 01:01:36 pm »

X1D - 'affordable'. Hmm. No, sorry, does not compute.


Include me out too, Bill...

;-(

Rob C

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2016, 02:48:43 pm »


Include me out too, Bill...

;-(

Rob C

i just got a $80 very light and compact 500mm manual focus mirror lens for my Canon, which has opened new photographic opportunities for me. That is what *I* call affordable change.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1345
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2016, 06:58:33 pm »

Ignoring for a moment dynamic range and so on, the question of resolution in DSLRs vs mirrorless is an interesting one.
I can't find the link, but someone recently commented that the Fuji X-T2 holds better detail that the 50 Mpx Canon 5Ds. Once I got over the outrageousness of the claim I realised there is one circumstance where this would be true.
When you are using these cameras hand-held.
When I switched to an X-T1, I wondered why it usually out-resolved my Canon 5D2. It wasn't just the lenses and aa filtering. My 5D2 lost a huge amount of detail if I didn't use mirror lock-up, waiting five seconds for the camera to settle down. Ditto any exposure around a twentieth to one second as that large shutter slammed open. A two kilogram beanbag sitting on the camera helped. Fine except that most of my photography is hand-held. And when I needed a tripod the exposure often ended up in that twentieth to one second "zone of death".
It seems to me that the real advantage of the coming mirrorless MF cameras will be in the detail provided when you are unable to use a tripod. Depending on the characteristics of the shutter dampening.
David
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2016, 07:04:32 pm »

Being older also, I fully understand the need to carry less.  The X1d could have seen more interest from me if Hasselblad had given it an articulating LCD.   For me macro tends to mean getting down close to the subject and the ability to tilt the LCD to me is a great asset.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

JeffS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2016, 10:45:54 pm »

Being older also, I fully understand the need to carry less.  The X1d could have seen more interest from me if Hasselblad had given it an articulating LCD.   For me macro tends to mean getting down close to the subject and the ability to tilt the LCD to me is a great asset.

Paul C


Tilt screen....see Fuji GFX.

And rotating EVF option, too.

Not much bigger than the X1D.

Jeff
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2016, 05:49:42 am »

i just got a $80 very light and compact 500mm manual focus mirror lens for my Canon, which has opened new photographic opportunities for me. That is what *I* call affordable change.

Edmund


Edmund, a beautiful focal length; mine's Nikkor 500, for what that matters, go and play:



Rob

P.S. On a Gitzo, just to frame, but there's absolutely no need to focus on any particular spot to make it look sharp - unless you have to - and here I intentionally avoided getting anything but the "circles" reasonably crisp. It's a dream-weaver's lens; if you need long and sharp follow Hans Feurer's way instead, and not Eddie Kohli's! Eddie and the late Arnaud de Rosnay built careers on mirror optics; Arnaud has a shot taken in the Bahamas, I think, which is the best 500 mirror shot I've ever seen: dark b/ground, incredibly silver circles and amazing clothes and model (Marisa Berenson?)... yep, dream-weaver stuff. All fucking lost to bigger and better and sharper until it kills, or you scream: gimme a break, enough crisp already, let's have some heart and soul, every Mrs Head's son Richard can do crisp!



« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 06:08:46 am by Rob C »
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2016, 08:25:33 am »


This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...

Cheers,
Bernard

The H6D us about perfect in size, IMO. Aside from being expensive, something in me wants to have a smaller MF camera with smaller lenses. I have the X1D on order, and also the three announced lenses. I also have the H-lens adapter and have already purchased the older HC 120mm Macro II for what little close-up I plan to do with the X1D. I still have and will keep the D810 and all of the many interesting lenses that work with it. The HGD is larger, heavier, and its lenses are way heavier, so that does not interest me... the size and weight. If I love the X1D, I will look harder at the H6D.

As far as paying for all this, here is my reasoning: I used to have to save and save to have enough to make it to the end of my life. Now I see I don't have so far to go, so I don't need as much money. Might as well spend some of it what I enjoy doing, photography.

I have to laugh. On another forum, when I wrote of purchasing the X1D, one flamer said that since I was not a professional photographer, the only reason I could possible have for the X1D was G.A.S. Some of us actually choose not to try to make a profession of photography, because it is not an easy road to travel.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2016, 10:38:50 am »

The H6D us about perfect in size, IMO. Aside from being expensive, something in me wants to have a smaller MF camera with smaller lenses. I have the X1D on order, and also the three announced lenses. I also have the H-lens adapter and have already purchased the older HC 120mm Macro II for what little close-up I plan to do with the X1D. I still have and will keep the D810 and all of the many interesting lenses that work with it. The HGD is larger, heavier, and its lenses are way heavier, so that does not interest me... the size and weight. If I love the X1D, I will look harder at the H6D.

As far as paying for all this, here is my reasoning: I used to have to save and save to have enough to make it to the end of my life. Now I see I don't have so far to go, so I don't need as much money. Might as well spend some of it what I enjoy doing, photography.

I have to laugh. On another forum, when I wrote of purchasing the X1D, one flamer said that since I was not a professional photographer, the only reason I could possible have for the X1D was G.A.S. Some of us actually choose not to try to make a profession of photography, because it is not an easy road to travel.


I'm old, I can't keep up with modern linguistics: what's G.A.S.?

Rob

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2016, 10:42:12 am »


I'm old, I can't keep up with modern linguistics: what's G.A.S.?

Rob

Gear Acquisition Syndrome
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2016, 11:31:59 am »

Gear Acquisition Syndrome


Thanks! Clearly, I must be immune!

;-)

Rob

FabienP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2016, 12:12:26 pm »

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that one more photographer was moving from full-frame to APS-C, because it is now good enough. It turns out that I was wrong... :-[

I would tend to agree with Bernard and say that those 44 x 33 mm sensors are too close to full-frame to make a substantial difference.

We still have not reached the point where more pixels on a full-frame sensor will negatively affect the dynamic range the sensor can capture. It will be interesting to see if this happens in the near future or if further advances in sensor manufacturing will keep the dynamic range constant with smaller pixels.

Cheers,

Fabien
Logged

Michael Erlewine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
    • MacroStop.com
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2016, 12:21:00 pm »

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that one more photographer was moving from full-frame to APS-C, because it is now good enough. It turns out that I was wrong... :-[

I would tend to agree with Bernard and say that those 44 x 33 mm sensors are too close to full-frame to make a substantial difference.

We still have not reached the point where more pixels on a full-frame sensor will negatively affect the dynamic range the sensor can capture. It will be interesting to see if this happens in the near future or if further advances in sensor manufacturing will keep the dynamic range constant with smaller pixels.

Cheers,

Fabien

I agree that this is a key question to be decided... as we go down the road. If it can, wonderful for me, because I have lenses that can take advantage of that. But regardless, the larger sensors have the same true of them and they have the advantage of having still larger photosites, etc.
Logged
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com. Founder MacroStop.com, MichaelErlewine.com, YouTube.com/user/merlewine

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 952
Re: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2016, 03:18:03 pm »


Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.

What if you calculate the light gathering ability of the whole system, not just the sensor? Hassy has f/3.5 and f/3.2 lenses, Nikon has f/1.8 and f/1.4 at all corresponding focal lengths. So comparing XD1 with f/3.2 lens to a Nikon D810 with f/1.4 lens, Nikon has 300% more light gathering ability than XD1.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 04:16:13 pm by Petrus »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up