MF - how long to live ?

[Carsten W]

Ok, I think I can do May. I'll get in touch for dates.

Edmund, why don't you just go on one of Michael's trips, like the Antarctica trips? I am sure you would get the opportunity there too, and there would lots of subject matter to try it out on.

[BlasR]

Edmund.

If I was you I will sale the D3x.

I pay $200.00 for the camera, and I print the photo 11.5 x 17.4

So get your money back in run.


BTW, Nice looking kids,

[Guy Mancuso]

Go shoot with a P65+ then tell me what you think.  

Michael

I have and I WANT one. LOL

[eleanorbrown]

I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs.  The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range.  Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc.  in my opinion are not  good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm.  I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales.  Eleanor

I printed a full-body outdoors portrait today from my D3x.

A very good poster 44" print from a *crop* of a Jpeg @ 1600 ISO.

Zero processing. Just retouched a few pimples.

Every dSLR will be able to do this in two years.

The D700x will be able to do this for $2K in 3 months.

This is ridiculous. I wouldn't buy shares in any MF manufacturer.

Edmund

[Hoang]

I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs.  The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range.  Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc.  in my opinion are not  good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm.  I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales.  Eleanor

Natural light architecture can have a very wide dynamic range.




and there can be a lot of high frequency detail in architecture



I know these aren't MFDB shots but just trying to show that architecture can be a pretty good test for comparing cameras

[Leonardo Barreto]

First of all, what we have now is residual of the film era when you had to design cameras that would use a given film size. So Nikon and Canon may soon decide to use a larger sensor -- exactly what is happening with Leica and the S2--, so it is about companies and what the want to do. Leica is going larger than 35mm for a reason. That same reason could very well apply to Nikon.

Following the argument, I think that it would be difficult to predict that the entire development of digital capture would first fall back --difficult first on its own-- and then settle in precisely the format established by Leica in the start of last century.

Remember when Nikon, not so long ago, stated that DX is all you need and all we will produce?

At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.

There's no doubt that the larger sensor can accommodate a greater number of pixels. However, if you can get the quality that you need from a more compact, lighter and more affordable box, then what's the point?

What I had in mind for a DSLR of the future, is a full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 50D and the internal processing of the Ricoh CX1. That would make it a 39mp FF sensor with the ability to bracket two different exposures and process them in-camera to produce a DR of about 15 stops (the Ricoh CX1 claims 12 stops).

For those concerned about their lenses not being sharp enough at F8 for a 39mp 35mm format, the camera would also be able to autobracket focussing distance when the lens is used at its sharpest aperture (say F5.6) to produce a DoF normally only possible at F32, but razor sharp.

How does that grab you?  

Here's the dpreview link to the Ricoh CX1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022002ricohinterview.asp

[BJL]

Leica is going larger than 35mm for a reason. That same reason could very well apply to Nikon.

I think that Leica has a reason that does not apply to Canon nor Nikon. Leica needs a completely new lens system, with AF, electronic lens-body coupling, and such. At that point, it can be worth making clean break with old lenses, choosing a new format and lens mount, as Olympus did with Four Thirds, and as Leica did when it invented 35mm film cameras. (Both went for smaller formats in those cases though.)

Canon and Nikon on the other hand have a huge installed base of good modern 35mm lenses, and many such lens designs in production, which give them far more incentive to build on that lens system rather than divert investment into a far, far smaller market sector.

It is worth noting that all major makers of AF 35mm film SLR lenses, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Konica-Minolta, have developed all of their DSLR's to have backward compatibility with those lenses, while Olympus and Leica (and now Panasonic and Samsung) have chosen more radical routes with less or no lens backward compatibility.


Aside: I wonder if the "R system successor" hinted at by Leica will be 35mm film format (24x36mm), "M8" format (18x27mm), 4/3" format, or something else.

Remember when Nikon, not so long ago, stated that DX is all you need and all we will produce?

At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.

Nikon never said that DX was all it would ever produce or all that anyone would ever need; it was far cagier, talking about "no current plans" for 35mm format while also saying that it was keeping an eye on the technology.

And why do people think that one alleged misjudgment by one usually anonymous person is much of a reason to disregard any prediction that they do not like? Try at least judging the evidence and arguments offered for the predictions!

[DesW]

I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs.  The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range.  Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc.  in my opinion are not  good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm.  I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales.  Eleanor

Eleanor,

 Go Girl!--you hit the nail right on the head-- My experiences with all the MF Digital backs past and current, Phase /Leaf/ Imacon/Hasselblad etc, is show any of them

massed landscape Greens/ Reds/Yellows in Foliage/etc and they all turn to mush.

Luvvv ya Work by the way!

DesW

[eronald]

Friend of mine in Germany was given a company BMW (small one), he lives 110Km from work,  and now commutes at 200 Km/h to work and back every day on the Autobahn. I'm really not sure your average driver makes a very good 200 Km/h driver.

Edmund

Considering how many crazy people are on the roads these days, maybe they were right. Teenagers, soccer moms, really old drivers and delivery people - those are the "mad" drivers I see daily.

BTW, Eleanor, what happens is that the architecture guys need long exposures often, and the car guys have huge DR issues (specular reflections); the dSLRs handle used to handle both of these badly so digital backs got those markets.

[Carsten W]

At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.

Yeah, I remember that. I thought it was 60 mph, but whatever. They simply weren't pushing top speed in the early days, because they thought that "the force of the wind at that speed would surely crush you!"

[Leonardo Barreto]

I suppose then that it was 60 mph, I was just trying to remember, and it is good that someone else saw it. I think that it is probably a good example of fast change brought by technology and how difficult it is to predict what will it be like at the end. We definitively passed the 60 mph mark with our sanity intact, but, even if we can make cars that go a lot faster, we settled in ones that travel at a nice, fast, safe, comfortable and -this is new- affordable way.

It will probably happen with cameras. I have a D300 system (DX Nikon) and a P25 645 (almost FF) and feel that it is a sufficient for my photography needs.

Of course I see what the neighbors have in new in their garages -some have Macmantions with 3 SUV's and Corvettes-.

I know that the car magazines are for showing new and improve cars, and same here with new models and to talk about how we can't wait for entire new systems that have urgently needed features... and for us to read about them as car/camera enthusiasts...

... sorry, I mean I do want the P65      

Yeah, I remember that. I thought it was 60 mph, but whatever. They simply weren't pushing top speed in the early days, because they thought that "the force of the wind at that speed would surely crush you!"

[BJNY]

edit