More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!

[Phil Indeblanc]

I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...

I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).

I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...

My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.

So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago).  Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.

As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.

The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.

So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.

The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),

There it is... Another what to do? :-)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Your best short term option may be to buy a Sony A7r. It has 36MP, has no OLP, works with Canon lenses using Metabones adapters.

Right now, Canon does not have the technology to compete with Sony sensors (Sony makes the high res sensors for Nikon), that may change.

Personally, I think that OLP less sensors are snake oil. They offer false resolution, inventing non existing detail. I think that a good, correctly OLP-filtered sensor is preferable, but that is just me.

So I would suggest that you keep your Canon stuff, add a Sony A7r and wait a year or so until you have a clear picture where Canon is going.

Best regards
Erik

I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...

I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).

I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...

My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.

So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago).  Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.

As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.

The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.

So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.

The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),

There it is... Another what to do? :-)

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Phil,

Wait for the Nikon D4x comes out before you change to Nikon. Rumours say it is going to be 56mpx.

Since I’ve got my Nikon D800’s I sold all my medium and large format equipment with out any regrets

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Both Nikon and Sony have had 24 MP APS-C cameras for a while. Delivering those sensors in FF 135 format would yield 54 MP or so. The technology is here and proven. I have a Sony Alpha 77, an APS-C camera at 24 MP. Pixel for pixel it does not look good on screen, but it impresses in prints!

Best regards
Erik

Hi Phil,

Wait for the Nikon D4x comes out before you change to Nikon. Rumours say it is going to be 56mpx.

Since I’ve got my Nikon D800’s I sold all my medium and large format equipment with out any regrets

Cheers

Simon

[alan_b]

Some options in order of ascending cost/pain:

1. Wait for Canon
2. Get an A7r + adapter to use with your Canon lenses (may encourage some lens upgrades?)
3. Get a P45+ to use with your current MF system
4. Sell off the Canon & buy a D800 + lenses (check availability of your lens needs for Nikon)

I moved to a D800 from P25 + Schneider Digitars, mostly for workflow/versatility and am generally happy.  Could really use a 17mm PC lens though!

[eronald]

Phil,

 I'm not sure which camera you are using with the back?

 However, I think that upsizing your images with something like Genuine Fractals might let you continue using your setup ...

Edmund

[Phil Indeblanc]

Some really encouraging feedback here.  I forgot about mentioning the A7R. It is adaptable to my Canon and Leica glass as Erik points out(Forgot about that)

I would be using it on a Sinar P2 with a number of lenses, but the sharpest I have is the Schn 180hr, I also use the Nikkor 120, 90, 300(Copal3 broke on it!)

Edmund, I have Blow up and Fractal, but for workflow, its already a mix of applications, I'm reluctant to add another.  My need for more mpixels is for editing purposes. I find editing anything already processed or up uprezzed to be more problematic.

It maybe the A7R!
I won't need a bunch of lenses for studio, as I hope I can adapt my 180/120mm, But I may like it enough to take with me and use as my 2ndcam along the 5Dmrk2.

As Simon, you shoot some of what I shoot in studio, it is encouraging to hear this, though it would be nice to be able to rent the A7R/same sensor D800E just to be sure :-)

So Alan, #2 sounds pretty good. For 3 weeks it will be #1 :-)

Erik, If I can do #1 on Alan's list, I maybe left with better options long run, but it will cost more.  As I am not a fan of getting the latest and greatest as soon as they hit the market (I got 5D2 after about a year). I don't know if I have the patients :-), But if I do wait, I bet Canon and Sony will have some nice options in the next year to come.

[eronald]

Phil,

 There are pixels and pixels. Phase backs have very clean enlargeable pixels; dSLRs have blurrier pixels with less "thick" color, harder to enlarge and edit. So rather than shop for a new body and lenses, etc, my feeling is you might as well trade up to a better used back via our friends Steve or Doug who know their stuff and seem to be unbelievably honest; shout three times and they will magically appear. if you do a simple back swap, you will keep your lenses, your workflow, your software, and by doing a single prior rental test you will know if it works. dSLRs are not competitors for digital backs, they are different tools that are more flexible but provide a different quality of file -at a much lower price.

Edmund

[Phil Indeblanc]

Edmond, this is my general understanding...Simons sample, which I would mean much more if I had the raw of, has me thinking otherwise, and making me very open to the possibility...

I will post more later, but for now, there is a Turkey waiting for us! :-)

[Ken R]

I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...

I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).

I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...

My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.

So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago).  Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.

As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.

The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.

So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.

The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),

There it is... Another what to do? :-)

For studio work I would suggest you upgrade the back. There are plenty of great options at good prices now from Leaf and Phase. If you do not need the larger chip or the long exposure capability of the P45+ the P40+ is a great choice. I am not familiar with Leaf's product line but I believe they have several good options in the 30-40mp range.

Here is a photo of a sony NEX (E Mount) mounted to an Arca Swiss camera. An A7R would work but a back is a much better solution with a larger sensor and a wider range of usable focal lengths.

[Doug Peterson]

There are pixels and pixels. Phase backs have very clean enlargeable pixels; dSLRs have blurrier pixels with less "thick" color, harder to enlarge and edit. So rather than shop for a new body and lenses, etc, my feeling is you might as well trade up to a better used back via our friends Steve or Doug who know their stuff and seem to be unbelievably honest; shout three times and they will magically appear. if you do a simple back swap, you will keep your lenses, your workflow, your software, and by doing a single prior rental test you will know if it works. dSLRs are not competitors for digital backs, they are different tools that are more flexible but provide a different quality of file -at a much lower price.

No need to shout three times. Once will do .

I think what you should do is go rent (or beg/borrow/steal) a D800 and a nice lens or two and do a test shoot. Don't worry so much about side-by-side scientific testing. Rather do the shoot as if the D800 was your new camera and see what you like and don't like.

There is a LOT more to finding a camera that you'll love working with than if it has enough resolution for your desired output. If I gave you a camera with 1000 megapixels but you don't love the color, then those 1000 megapixels won't be worth a dime. If I give you a camera that you love the output of but that you can't use in such a way to accomplish your vision (e.g. an 8x10 for someone shooting sports) then the output won't matter.

As for Canon making a medium format camera... same rumor, different year. I maintain there is little chance that Canon or Nikon will make any medium format systems in the next several years (I'm smarter than to try to predict anything in technology more than several years out). It's too small a market for companies whose business models rely almost entirely on volume.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Love that m Arca Swiss. No, I don't need long exposure. 39mpixels would be nice.

Edmund, I know what you mean when you say pixel vs pixel, as when you edit a MF file, you can see more information moving in it, and when you make edits like blur/smudge tool, you see it takes more to change an area, while a quick swipe on a 35 sensor file is fragile, colors and pixels get tweaked/shifted easier.
But I don't know if this means better pictures delivered to client. Maybe more careful editing? :-) 

Well guys, I might have to try and uprez my files before postprocessing, for now. Never thought of it for regular practice, so I will give it a shot Edmund. If I did buy a back, I hope you know Doug , that it would be no quandary of it being you.  But this year has been my second year taking a bit of a hit. I need to increase work :-) 

I will likely rent the Nikon (with access. to mount to my lenses) just to see the differences, gains/short comings.
I love the results of my processing of C1v7, wish I had a C1 without all the fluff, just process (no catalog, no folders in my file structure, different thread:-),
I find the need to always to go into PS on all files(in client work), and often to use LR on them before hand, Thats 3 programs minimum. 2 redundant. So using Fractal will add one more, but it maybe something I can automate to some degree.

 Its a matter of wants vs need over expendables :-) One easier to expend on than the other



 

[Phil Indeblanc]

Uprez by 40% caused my file to go beyond 9GB with layers (open in PS) !!!
This is the case for 30-40% of my production. That would fill things up quick. but I can be selective on a need be basis.

I already have close to 10TB and i'm starting to run low....I know I will be getting 4 or 8 (3-4TB in RAID+1) drives very soon, but that would be another issue with much larger files eating space very quickly.

So with Pixel not = to Pixel, (I would think even the 22MB files off the MF vs the D800 hold "better" /At some point resolution does get more information of what is in site?), I may as well stay with what isn't broken, just brief/discuss with clients more clearly as to the way they want the images, this would help in itself!

[BernardLanguillier]

So with Pixel not = to Pixel, (I would think even the 22MB files off the MF vs the D800 hold "better" /At some point resolution does get more information of what is in site?), I may as well stay with what isn't broken, just brief/discuss with clients more clearly as to the way they want the images, this would help in itself!

My view is that the D800 files can take incredible amount of manipulations while retaining a high level of integrity, much more so than my Mamya ZD files ever could. It was already the case for the D3x files by the way.

With proper lenses, technique and sharpening, the files also have a nice crispiness to them without the unpleasantly brittle look I too often see in the AA filterless files of some backs. But that really is a matter of taste.

Anyway, you should indeed just give it a try and see for yourself. C1 Pro is probably the best option to convert D800 raw files at base ISO, I find DxO 9 to work great as a generic converter since it auto tunes the level of noise reduction required as a function of the ISO used.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Phil Indeblanc]

Thanks Bernard,

I should probably be more specific: When using MF/studio, I stay on 50 ISO ALWAYS, and my files need only the most basic of processing, in C1, likely a 1/2 or couple max stops of exposure usually reduced as I expose for darks as recovery is really good (this in itself is a debate between sensors,hehe), I also raise the structure and detail a bit, maybe adjust some highlight and Darkness ....07 Radius/240 Sharpen, and so on. On rare occasion use the gradient overlay.

Yesw, it looks like I have to try..So far I am out of luck on D800E rentals. they offer the nonE, ..I will check a couple more "local" spots before online

[Paul2660]

Phil

Did you try lensrentsls.com?  I thought at one time they had both models.  800 and 800e.

Paul Caldwell

[Phil Indeblanc]

No Paul, I wanted to try my local stores first, so far 2 out of 4 is a no go.

I will check that out mid next week if other stores don't have it.

I wish a local "photo-colleague had it to test. Anyone interested in testing this with HR lenses on rails? PM me.
A $3K true upgrade for me works, anymore is not that worth the improvement for my needs. Well... If Cartier, Tiffany and the like were my clients, sure. But I don't know how to market to them :-)

[eronald]

Doug,

 Do us all a favor, offer this guy the upgrade deal he is not so subtly angling for, and get him out of here already!

Edmund

No Paul, I wanted to try my local stores first, so far 2 out of 4 is a no go.

I will check that out mid next week if other stores don't have it.

I wish a local "photo-colleague had it to test. Anyone interested in testing this with HR lenses on rails? PM me.
A $3K true upgrade for me works, anymore is not that worth the improvement for my needs. Well... If Cartier, Tiffany and the like were my clients, sure. But I don't know how to market to them :-)

[Phil Indeblanc]

heheehe

A $3K true upgrade for me works

I doubt any deals will be that sweet. but thanks :-)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I cannot talk about Nikon D800E, but I have a P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 (same sensor as Nikon D800). What I see is:

- The P45+ has a significant advantage in sharpness
- The Sony Alpha has a significant advantage in the shadows
- The P45+ has yellowish greens
- There is a difference in AWB between the Sony and the P45+, I would recommend gray card shooting on the P45+
- Histograms are almost reliable on the Sony, on P45+ less so

For shadows/highlight I think the Sony is to go.

Here are a couple of comparable samples with raw images included (small dark crop):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/ShadowDetail/

I normally process my images in Lightroom. I have also processed the P45+ image in Capture 1. C1 does as default extreme amount of noise reduction in the shadow area, with a smeary look, but it can be tuned.

Raw histograms, check below. I would guess a scene illumination range of about 9EV.

The P45+ arrived in 2007, it has a Kodak sensor. Later Phase One switched to Dalsa sensors, and there has been a significant development in DR and noise. I enclose some DxO data. Actually, the DxO data is pretty similar to my findings. Nikon D800 would measure a bit better.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Bernard,

I should probably be more specific: When using MF/studio, I stay on 50 ISO ALWAYS, and my files need only the most basic of processing, in C1, likely a 1/2 or couple max stops of exposure usually reduced as I expose for darks as recovery is really good (this in itself is a debate between sensors,hehe), I also raise the structure and detail a bit, maybe adjust some highlight and Darkness ....07 Radius/240 Sharpen, and so on. On rare occasion use the gradient overlay.

Yesw, it looks like I have to try..So far I am out of luck on D800E rentals. they offer the nonE, ..I will check a couple more "local" spots before online