Phaseone 70mo's

[James R Russell]

get ZD camera:)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know much about the ZD as I've only held one in Japan about a year ago, but when you step back and thnk of it, it could have been the pentax 6x7 of digital.

Portable but kind of slow, big (relatively) frame size, and farily inexepensive (for medium format).

But back in the film days, a camera with more mirror slap than a B actress, and non optimum workflow (loading film) could be offset by huge 6x7 resoltuion, a variety of sensors (film), fast lenses and you could always buy 4 of them and have an assistant keep loading.

Since this thread started on the possiblity of a 70mp sensor, you have to think that nothing holds medium format down like the availability of sensors.  It seems you have almost 645 with low to medium iso and a little smaller than 645 with low/medium to low/high iso but nothing new or revolutionary like cmos, of high iso, or 6x7 or  . . .

I guess my question is . . .  is the medium format world more expensive because the market is small, or is the market small because medium format is more expensive.

Would the ZD be a hit if there were 20 different 645 sensors to choose from that had a range of iso options and shooting speed and would the development funds for such a camera be larger if they end product sold for $7,000 or less?

Is there a market for a 6x7 digital camera like the pentax if it had a 5" lcd screen or went wirelessly to an Ipod touch AND didn't cost $50,000?

I somewhat don't understand the photography world.  I know there are more professional photographers than ever (by a wide margin), but for films (sensors) we have fewer options than ever and for cameras, fewer options still.

I think  the thing that holds back medium format is the percieved complexity and costs and the fact that all of the buyers are now trained to know that every 12 months or so, a new one is coming out.

Personally I don't think medium format isn't any more complex than the dslrs and in some ways when tethered it's much easier, but I do know that for the unknowing to walk into a camera store and see a digital camera in the flesh, fire off a few frames and compare a dslr lcd to any medium format, you probably understand why so much is shot with Canons and Nikons.

Then if the your ready to write the check for say a p21 or a p30 and a salesman says, "hey guess what, the next one is going to have 70mp", you probably just put your wallet back in your pocket.

I'm all for moving forward, but before I put any more money out on this stuff, the dslrs included, there has to be a clear and decided difference and not just in pixel count.

JR

[EricWHiss]

Last night about an hour or two after the sun was down I was looking up at the moon and sky.  I realized that digital could not do that midnight blue sky justice - maybe on screen but certainly not on print. (I've seen cprints that do nice dark saturated colors but really don't want to avoid dig vs film here).

Honestly, I don't care so much about more pixels, but I do want higher DR and color - and a big chip would be great.  I like square too but I'm not hung up on it.     So if color and DR improvements are bundled in with more pixels that would be fine.

From just messing around with HDR stacks, I think about 5 more stops than what my P20 is giving me would be about what my eye sees.   Highlight and shadow features don't give a natural look so I'm not buying software added DR yet - I want it from the sensor.

[woof75]

get ZD camera:)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, good point, I was thinking a digital mamiya 7 because of it's light weight. I'd love a self contained something or other, I wonder if they'll do a zd 2 with some of the "issues" worked out. That would be nice.

[Mort54]

From just messing around with HDR stacks, I think about 5 more stops than what my P20 is giving me would be about what my eye sees.   Highlight and shadow features don't give a natural look so I'm not buying software added DR yet - I want it from the sensor.

Just to play devil's advocate here - who says a photo has to capture what the eye sees? I would say most of my all time favorite images, from Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenburg, Jim Shaw, and  David Muench, were all taken on transparency film, with at best five stops of DR. In many cases, it was probably the limited dynamic range that made the images so dramatic and made them pop. Most HDR shots, to me at least, look cartoonish, largely because most of those doing HDR work use it in a heavy handed manner, without any subtlety. To some extent, I think DR is somewhat overrated (which doesn't stop me from wanting more of it, either :-)

[RobertJ]

Landscape photographers already have a 160 MP solution:
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/...8/d925/f934.cfm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm talking only about one shot capture backs, but yeah, that thing is pretty sweet.

[Tim Lüdin]

Yeah, I also would like to see more DR than MPs.
I think about 40 MPs are enough for most of the high end stuff.
But we all would love to have better high iso perfomance and more DR, maybe about 3-5 stops more.
And faster faster faster processing speeds in the backs.
Fast Wifi would be great too, so no more cabel stuff etc.

I think the first DB maker that brings such a back out will be the king of the hill.
Oh and did I say a big clear LCD screen?

And like James mentioned, are the backs so expensive because of the small market or is the market so small because of the high prices?
The DB makers should follow RED's path of marketing, pricing and web-appearence. RED is doing a great job with their clear path of pricing etc.
Their is no guess work envolved. You always know what the prices are.
For every f..ing peace of equipment.

The DB makers should start to wake up if they whatn to survive.

Tim

[EricWHiss]

Just to play devil's advocate here - who says a photo has to capture what the eye sees? I would say most of my all time favorite images, from Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenburg, Jim Shaw, and  David Muench, were all taken on transparency film, with at best five stops of DR. In many cases, it was probably the limited dynamic range that made the images so dramatic and made them pop. Most HDR shots, to me at least, look cartoonish, largely because most of those doing HDR work use it in a heavy handed manner, without any subtlety. To some extent, I think DR is somewhat overrated (which doesn't stop me from wanting more of it, either :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Sure I agree with you that most HDR stuff looks cartoon like (to my 42yr old eyes and mindset), and many many film shots with limited DR are lovely.  But no reason that if there were a camera with say 18 stops DR,  you could not just adjust the black and white points and curves to your preference.  I'd just like the extra control.

[bryanyc]

yes it really would be nice to have a mamiya 7D or a fuji 67D rangefinder.  the texas leica of digital.

[rovanpera]

But back in the film days, a camera with more mirror slap than a B actress, and non optimum workflow (loading film) could be offset by huge 6x7 resoltuion, a variety of sensors (film), fast lenses and you could always buy 4 of them and have an assistant keep loading.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With a 70mp back you will need several assistants to load cf's and hard drives...