Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on August 02, 2015, 09:31:45 pm
-
The first real A7RII images are trickling in on dpreview. They are pretty detailed. I think there is going to be a good market in high-rez lenses. Also, for landscape users without the most stable tripods it's not at all obvious that an MF back will be able to hold more rez than a stabilised 35mm camera of this new generation.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3881960
I think MF needs new tech. The gap is narrowing more and more.
Edmund
-
Is this another attempt to say that medium format is dead? Getting rather old.
-
I just ordered a Credo 80 back. If that doesn't kick Sony's ass I don't know what will.
-
Also, for landscape users without the most stable tripods it's not at all obvious that an MF back will be able to hold more rez than a stabilised 35mm camera of this new generation.
You mean to tell me my $24.99 Ritz Tripod is not going to cut it with my IQ180?
Say it isn't so!!
Dave
-
You mean to tell me my $24.99 Ritz Tripod is not going to cut it with my IQ180?
Say it isn't so!!
Dave
At the very least I expect no contest for any handheld use.
Edmund
-
I just ordered a Credo 80 back. If that doesn't kick Sony's ass I don't know what will.
The credo will of course deliver more detailed files when everything is done perfectly.
In real world applications, I'd love to be able to compare the average detail in the files captured. I would think that the superior focusing abilities of the Sony (including eye detection, AF from the sensor,...) and its superior DR may result in better files.
You can try that yourself, buying one is a trivial cost compared to your Credo! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not convinced that stabilization , if the camera is on a tripod, is the way to go. My understanding was that if the camera was put on a tripod, then stabilization should be turned off. Surely with each pixel site being so very very small, almost any vibration is going to cause problems - even the vibration of the anti-shake sensor!
With a $3K body, $5K Otus lens from Zeiss, you are at $8K for a sharp Sony, which is within striking distance of the Pentax 645Z, which has 50 megapixels. I don't know the current prices of the other stuff.
In my limited experience with even the 30-year old 75mm standard lens on the old, original 645 from Pentax - that ancient non-AF lens could resolve enough to keep the 645Z happy. Newer lenses, even more so.
-
Is this another attempt to say that medium format is dead? Getting rather old.
Hi Don,
While I agree that Edmunds questions do tend to have a similar 'angle of approach', there is of course also something one can agree on. There is a need for new tech, if the MF market wants to survive in the long run. The low cost alternative are getting better, while the developments in MF are mostly stagnant.
However, what most people fail to recognize is that physically large sensors, while relatively expensive due to low yield, small volumes, and required high margins, have a huge technical/physical benefit over any smaller siblings. A large sensor means that a longer focal length is used for the same angle of view, and that combined results in a larger on-sensor magnification factor of the projected image.
As we know, larger feature sizes usually have a higher MTF response. So for an identical field of view (assuming the same aspect ratio) the physically larger sensor will produce a more robust image for post-processing, not only but especially with the micro contrast. That has (almost) nothing to do with dynamic range or other qualities that sensors may have.
Therefore, to maintain that discrimiinating advantage and not let it be (more than) compensated with other benefits of smaller sensors, the MF sensors (and ecosystem) do need to at least keep up with some of the smaller sensors features. A switch to larger MF CMOS sensor versions with high DR may be all that's needed for the near future (I do understand the issues for work that requires WA and/or shifted lenses). That coupled with much better calibration, very high quality lenses and better tethering, maybe even with better Bayer CFA filters, would make a combination that's hard to beat for real professional work.
I think that a larger threat comes from clients who want to lower their cost by squeezing out Photographers, which gets easier when the image quality gap gets narrower (which it doesn't have to). Of course there is more to being a successful photographer than producing high quality images, people management and relation skills and a good network are also very important.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Image quality from digital cameras has been acceptable for 99% of pro demands since the EOS 1Ds. Best practice, such as using strobes or a tripod probably makes more difference in the final image. To be honest I would say that the determining factor in the future of MF vs 35mm cameras is what camera you were trained with and what camera system you like to use.
Cheers,
-
Since getting the 5DSr I am using the 645z a lot less....
It's that Sigma 24-35mm F2 y'see.
I don't wish the demise of medium format either. On the subject of blurring I'm running around shooting non stabilised lenses / bodies handheld at the focal length = shutter speed and the images are pin sharp. Must be that smaller, lighter mirror :D
-
I think that a larger threat comes from clients who want to lower their cost by squeezing out Photographers, which gets easier when the image quality gap gets narrower (which it doesn't have to). Of course there is more to being a successful photographer that producing high quality images, people management and relation skills and a good network are also very important.
Cheers,
Bart
This.
People need a certain level on image quality. They need the images for promotional material, fashion, sales, whatever. Does it need to be shot on a 25k body anymore when a 135 sensor from Sony is enough. Or enough so that people can't tell the difference and halves their campaign costs.
-
Image quality from digital cameras has been acceptable for 99% of pro demands since the EOS 1Ds. Best practice, such as using strobes or a tripod probably makes more difference in the final image. To be honest I would say that the determining factor in the future of MF vs 35mm cameras is what camera you were trained with and what camera system you like to use.
Cheers,
+1
But I also feel there are advantages and disadvantages of each system. Most younger photographers are now being trained on the 35mm DSLRs, and have little knowledge on the advantages MF offer or why they are advantages. Primarily these would be use of the tech camera and leaf shutters.
Since few schools are still teaching the tech camera, most do not understand the advantages it has over the tilt/shift lenses, which there are many. Same thing with leaf shutters. Even trying to get people to understand why they are necessary some times is difficult. (I feel like it is easier to teach algebra to snarky high school students sometimes then camera tech to photographers who are interested in photography.)
Not sure who to blame here, but much of this weight I place on the schools not living up to what they say they teach.
In any event, going forward, MF companies should place more of an emphasis on the technical aspects of what the cameras can do and how they differ. This will give them more of an edge then talking about image quality, especially after you show people why you do not need more than one focus point for almost every genre of photography.
-
The markets where MF will rule is shifting with the higher resolution 35mm gear. The places where MF still excel will not change, the places where folks are willing to pay for it will.
It's unfortunate that 35mm gear is accelerating faster than MF gear. Imagine how pissed off this entire forum would be were it not for the Sony 50mp chip.
-
Medium format film always had (still has) dramatically higher image quality than 35mm film. Tonality, detail, richness, colors, ability to crop, ability to print large... it was all there.
Same thing in the early days of MFD versus 35mm digital. The much larger sensor area and those big fat pixels translated into exactly the same sorts of advantages.
Not so much anymore, IMHO. Having stolen a march with CMOS-tech, high-end 35mm digital is rapidly closing the gap on MFD. Increasingly, it takes a technologist (as opposed to simply a visually literate consumer) to discern the difference between the formats in any kind of conventional use case.
The MFD manufacturers are at the mercy of the chip makers, of course. And therein lies the rub. It would seem that between R&D and yield ratios and unit costs and all the rest, the full-frame 35mm sensor space is the place to live. MFD is a space to be exploited, of course. But as a secondary market. Your best scientists and engineers develop for 35mm. Your fabrication priorities are for 35mm. Your budget priority is for 35mm. You do MFD as an afterthought, or give it to the junior guys.
At least it seems that's the way it is.
The much-lauded (deservedly so) 50mp Sony CMOS sensor which represents today's leading-MFD tech is the case-in-point. 33x44 is simply not that much larger than 24x36.
MFD needs a much bigger chip in order to retain its historical advantage.
-
Jager,
I've been told that where the tech effort really goes is cellphone sensors; all the rest is spinoff.
Edmund
It would seem that between R&D and yield ratios and unit costs and all the rest, the full-frame 35mm sensor space is the place to live. MFD is a space to be exploited, of course. But as a secondary market. Your best scientists and engineers develop for 35mm. Your fabrication priorities are for 35mm. Your budget priority is for 35mm. You do MFD as an afterthought, or give it to the junior guys.
At least it seems that's the way it is.
The much-lauded (deservedly so) 50mp Sony CMOS sensor which represents today's leading-MFD tech is the case-in-point. 33x44 is simply not that much larger than 24x36.
MFD needs a much bigger chip in order to retain its historical advantage.
-
I've been told that where the tech effort really goes is cellphone sensors; all the rest is spinoff.
Nothing wrong with good spinoff, as long as it materializes in a physically large sensor with plenty high MTF pixels as a result.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I've been told that where the tech effort really goes is cellphone sensors; all the rest is spinoff.
I think that is pretty much true, at least the last time I attended Norman Koren's Imatest training here in the valley, I was the only one not working with cell phones…
The multi-aperture stuff might really make a difference.
That said, I do believe the real advantage the Sony has over MFDB is basically better high ISO capability - oh yeah and also really useful autofocus. Personally I haven't been wowed with the detail on the sample images I've seen like I am still with the MFDB.
-
I think that is pretty much true, at least the last time I attended Norman Koren's Imatest training here in the valley, I was the only one not working with cell phones…
What I noticed when I attended was that nobody was interested in cameras or images.
The imaging device now has as much to do with pictures as an amplifier in electronics has to do with music.
Edmund
-
Hi,
If shooting on free hand in available light, stabilisation may play a major role. But, I don't think stabilisation is a decisive factor.
Why? To begin with I would guess that MFD shooters in general use the cameras where ultimate image quality is sought. In my view and experience this mostly precludes handheld shooting. Now, I am fully aware that some MFD users shoot technical cameras handheld from helicopters, but I would say in general that MF DSLRs are best used on tripod, with mirror lockup, or with high speed strobes. Under those optimal conditions image stabilisation wouldn't help.
With present day CMOS 35 mm had a significant advantage in readout noise, allowing for extending DR in the deep shadows or as an alternative use high ISOs. Those two things are the opposing sides of the same coin.
But, the latest generation of MFD is based on Sony CMOS technology, like the technology employed in Nikon D800/D810 and the Sony A7/A7r. So both MFD and 35mm uses similar generation CMOS from the same vendor. Some Pentax lenses also have image stabilisation.
The present generation MF CMOS sensors are 44x33 mm, making them 1.7X larger than a 24x36mm sensor. So, they collect 70% more light, giving something like 30% improvement in Signal Noise Ratio (SNR).
Also, linear size is around 1.3 times larger. So if an MF-lens reaches say 80% MTF at 20 lp/mm a 35mm lens would need 80% MTF at 26 lp/mm. Here I would suggest the high end lenses like The Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 or the Batis 85/1.8 may reach and surpass the best Hasselblad V generation lenses in spit of the format advantage. See enclosed MTF for the legendary (*) 100/3.5 Planar for the Hasselblad and the Otus 85/1.4.
With CCD higher resolutions are possible, up to 80 MP recently and the sensor surface is larger so less demand is made on the lens.
So my guess is:
- 50 MP CMOS on MF probably dominates 36-50 MP CMOS on 35mm in most aspects.
- 36-50MP CMOS on 35mm with excellent lenses may match and surpass 50MP MFD CMOS with less excellent lenses
- 80 MP CCD with 1.0 crop factor combined with excellent lenses and excellent lenses will be hard to beat, and plays reasonably well with symmetric ultrawides
This may put 30-50MP CCD in a less enviable position, but the competitive situation may press the prices of those systems in the second hand market, so more photographers can get their feet wet in the low end MFD sector. Keep in mind, those systems are still capable of excellent images.
As a final thought, we also need to consider maintenance costs. According to Lensrentals, DSLR repairs are on the order of 350$. I would guess MFD repairs are ten times more expensive. That may also be a consideration for those who regard green backs a finite asset that should be spent wisely.
Best regards
Erik
(*) The Planar 100/3.5 was intended for tasks like architecture and arial photography. It was probably the sharpest of the classical Hasselblad lenses for the V-series. The last generation of Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad include some very good designs like the 40/4 CFE IF and the Tele-Superachromat T* 300/2.8.
-
What's to say that MFDB won't have IBIS at some point?
All the 35mm and smaller format images look flat to me. I still prefer MF and LF images often even when they are not tack sharp
-
What's to say that MFDB won't have IBIS at some point?
All the 35mm and smaller format images look flat to me. I still prefer MF and LF images often even when they are not tack sharp
Tech cams are locked down on a tripod 99% of the time so no need for IBIS. But you just never know with a new large sensored MFDB attached to a body with some new camera technology. Not really sure what's in store for that upgradable Honeybee under the hood of the new XF.... IBIS of some sort would be really cool...
To me it has always been about the format. I'm not fond of the 2:3 ratio of 35mm sensors. But each has its place in my camera bag.
ken
-
Hi,
There are some reasons I don't think we will see IBIS
- I would guess that IBIS is pretty intensive engineering task, and I don't think it would be worthwhile for the quite small MFD business
- MFDBs are often quite separate from bodies. The new phase one camera has a lot of integration of course.
- IBIS may add tolerances, which may be more negative than positive in the context MFD systems often are used.
- It may make more sense to add IBIS for say Pentax or Leica than for Phase. Leica is perhaps often used handheld.
As a matter of fact, I wish I could buy the A7rII without IBIS and without stabilisation in the lenses. But again, that would be a tiny part of a small market.
Best regards
Erik
Tech cams are locked down on a tripod 99% of the time so no need for IBIS. But you just never know with a new large sensored MFDB attached to a body with some new camera technology. Not really sure what's in store for that upgradable Honeybee under the hood of the new XF.... IBIS of some sort would be really cool...
To me it has always been about the format. I'm not fond of the 2:3 ratio of 35mm sensors. But each has its place in my camera bag.
ken
-
The PhaseOne XF is the pinnacle of the Medium Format SLR evolution. Hasselblad might come out with another incremental update to their H system (same with leica) but It is safe to say that the XF is gonna be the last MF SLR system made from the ground up. The next one is going to be mirrorless and just retain backwards compatibility with SLR lenses via adapters. (kinda like what Sony did).
Who is going to come out with it first? Impossible to know but it might be Leica, Sony or even Fuji. Hasselblad is a long shot unless they partner with Fuji again for the design/build.
Regarding the IBIS in MF. It might come after or with the new MF mirrorless system camera body.
-
Hi,
I hoped that Phase One would come out with a mirrorless camera. But, it lets you shoot from live view with LS lenses.
Interesting speculation on mirrorless MFD. It would make a lot of sense. But I would think the MFD market is quite a bit tricky, more about perception than reality in many senses. Also, any MFD vendor is dependent on raw support from one the big vendors. Phase One would not support another MFD system, Adobe would, but Adobe doesn't have a good stand in the MFD marketplace.
So, entering the MFD marketplace is a bit tricky. Who knows, innovation may come from Pentax and Leica, both are low cost vendors with a foot in the Adobe/DNG camp.
Best regards
Erik
The PhaseOne XF is the pinnacle of the Medium Format SLR evolution. Hasselblad might come out with another incremental update to their H system (same with leica) but It is safe to say that the XF is gonna be the last MF SLR system made from the ground up. The next one is going to be mirrorless and just retain backwards compatibility with SLR lenses via adapters. (kinda like what Sony did).
Who is going to come out with it first? Impossible to know but it might be Leica, Sony or even Fuji. Hasselblad is a long shot unless they partner with Fuji again for the design/build.
Regarding the IBIS in MF. It might come after or with the new MF mirrorless system camera body.
-
My guess is that Sony will be first to introduce mirrorless MF with a possible FUJI partnership releasing their respective cameras around the same time using the same sensor. Fuji makes a great APS-C camera but I think they have realized they have limited themselves with the sensor size choice of the system wit the the new gen of Sony A cameras. Fuji has a heritage in MF and having a APS-C line and MF line would suit them well. However, I don't think Sony is in any hurry to let anyone put out a better camera than themselves anytime soon. Where I could be wrong is that they in a way have already produced a MF sensor for other brands. Now that these MF companies have had their way with that sensor, maybe we will see a MF camera from Sony shortly kind of like how we saw the A7R released quite a period later than the D800.
-
I don't buy items to test them. There's no question a Credo 80 on a tripod (always) will kick Sony's ass why bother I already know the answer
The credo will of course deliver more detailed files when everything is done perfectly.
In real world applications, I'd love to be able to compare the average detail in the files captured. I would think that the superior focusing abilities of the Sony (including eye detection, AF from the sensor,...) and its superior DR may result in better files.
You can try that yourself, buying one is a trivial cost compared to your Credo! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The PhaseOne XF is the pinnacle of the Medium Format SLR evolution.
Uh, no. The XF is only the pinnacle of the Phase/ DF evolution. The Hy6 is still a better camera than the XF even with all the XF's computer power. It's lighter, has more finder options, the AF is faster (80mm v 80mm on each), can shoot digital back or film backs, better ergonomics (you can't beat a physical slider switch with definite positions). Yeah the XF has a WLF no but it can only spot meter with it fitted. The full metering is only available with the 90 prism finder. Am I the only one that thinks Phase could have done better? Sure it has a nice computer in it but…
-
To me it has always been about the format. I'm not fond of the 2:3 ratio of 35mm sensors. But each has its place in my camera bag.
I agree, I also find 3::2 quite restrictive having shot with 67, square and 4x5.
-
Am I the only one that thinks Phase could have done better?
No, you're not alone.
-
Since getting the 5DSr I am using the 645z a lot less....
It's that Sigma 24-35mm F2 y'see.
You wanted a wide zoom and went with the Sigma 24-35 instead of the Pentax 28-45 for the Z? Price difference aside, the latter has stabilization, a wider zoom range (22-35.5 effective) and completely bonkers image quality.
I'm sure the Sigma is a fine lens, but the Pentax is a friggen razor blade wide open, and that's just based on some RAWs I found on the net, which usually means it's not the best result that can be had.
-
My guess is that Sony will be first to introduce mirrorless MF with a possible FUJI partnership releasing their respective cameras around the same time using the same sensor. Fuji makes a great APS-C camera but I think they have realized they have limited themselves with the sensor size choice of the system wit the the new gen of Sony A cameras. Fuji has a heritage in MF and having a APS-C line and MF line would suit them well. However, I don't think Sony is in any hurry to let anyone put out a better camera than themselves anytime soon. Where I could be wrong is that they in a way have already produced a MF sensor for other brands. Now that these MF companies have had their way with that sensor, maybe we will see a MF camera from Sony shortly kind of like how we saw the A7R released quite a period later than the D800.
I would guess that a larger brand would need to be involved for Sony or anyone else to invest in creating a CMOS full 645 sized sensor. The problem with Fuji and Sony doing that to me seems to be that both are currently working hard to build there new mirrorless lens lineups, moving resources to MF might slow that down which would not be ideal.
I wouldn't totally rule out Canon or Nikon looking at a MF sensor if a full 645 CMOS sensor was around. If they do have interest in this market I wouldn't be surprised if the current smaller sizes aren't viewed as going far enough beyond their 35mm setups. Nikon perhaps seems a bit more likely to me as its not expanding into cine lenses the way Canon is.
-
IMO, there is no comparison between new generation high res small formats and Medium Format. Resolution by numbers is only one piece of the pie.
-
Hi,
I wouldn't generalise, my own experience is with a P45+, obviously an older one, and 24 MP Sony. The real diference I see is resolution, where the P45 has a great pixel peeping advantage. With the print sizes I normally do, A2, I see no great difference. But that may differ from case to case. I have an A7rII on order. So I will know better in a few days how well the P45+ and the Sony will match up. What is great with the Sony is that I can use it with a lot of interesting lenses, not least for tilt and shift. Canon T&S, Hasselblad lenses of which I have plenty, the excellent Yashica/Contax 35 PC and still be under the cabin weight limits on most flights.
Best regards
Erik
IMO, there is no comparison between new generation high res small formats and Medium Format. Resolution by numbers is only one piece of the pie.
-
What's to say that MFDB won't have IBIS at some point?
All the 35mm and smaller format images look flat to me. I still prefer MF and LF images often even when they are not tack sharp
In the following gallery there are pictures shot with a number of different DSLR's and also MF over time http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/
It should be easy without looking at the info button to see which ones are from which kind of camera, right? :)
-
With all due respect to the above posters, here's a different perspective: that in our discussion of the future of MFDB, we are standing on the wrong foot. Too often, the criteria used in such pondering is the "where is the DSLR-optimized technology?", and if/when/how that technology can or will migrate to MFDB-based camera platforms or backs.
I'd suggest an alternate position: that MFDB-based work is really the electronic-era equivalent to LF work of years past and we should look at it in those terms. Its either equivalent to 4x5 or 8x10, depending on the back, sometimes with movements, sometimes without. But the thoughtfulness and the more profound results, the care in the discipline of the image, all harken back to LF work of the past 150 years, not the cel-phone snaps of the past 5 years.
The addition of other technologies to MFDB that mimic the DSLR world is, IMHO, not essential to this work flow. If they come, perhaps they should be considered gravy. MFDB cannot, and probably (!) should not, compete on that front - it will lose that battle as its terms are set by smaller, lighter, mirrorless technology that, as Eronald points out, comes from cel phones, sold in the millions. MFDB can't garnish the investment heft to compete in that world.
Those of us who love MFDB and large format (I'd like to suggest we're cousins) should appreciate what we have, and work within that discipline. We are better off accepting that, instead of regretting what it's not. Sure I'd like hand-held, low light, high ISO backs, but if they don't come out, or are too expensive, they are not essential to the work flow. Perhaps the wedding photographer who wants to shoot MF needs this, but lots of us work in a slower, more contemplative way.
Those with MFDB who don't see the difference with the smaller CMOS "instacameras" might simply be missing something here. Maybe the difference isn't so noticeable for all shots, but its there. Hey, there was a political campaign photographer who shot with 4x5 film and got wonderful results. Different, but still special. If they can, surely we can?
-
I use the Linhof Techno and 50 megapixel CCD back with my Schneider Digitar lenses because I like the large format style of work, carefully set up tripod-mounted shots, lens movements etc. I'd love to have a CMOS live view, which I maybe will get eventually if the coming generations have fixed the crosstalk issues and don't cost too much. If they just fix the crosstalk issue I think I can live with the "tiny" 44x33 size. Meanwhile I'm collecting hipster points by using the ground glass.
Although absolute image quality is important to me, I'm not too worried about the 135 competition. The best 135s already exceeds my camera system in some aspects, but none that I'm really dependent on. If 135 just becomes too good and MFD becomes too expensive with too little value for me, which may be the case in five years, I just switch to 135 for my landscape work. I've used it before and I can use it again. Now when I'm becoming good at camera color profiling it's becoming easy for me to move between systems while keeping my personal look intact.
Personally I couldn't spot a look difference due to difference in format size, assuming it's a deep DoF shot like most landscape shots are. Sure I can see if lens movements have been used and such things, and from side effects I can identify the format sometimes. If I have to switch back to 135 in the future it's not the reduced size of the sensor I will miss the most though (I think it's only about resolving power I see no difference in look due to that the sensor is larger), but the more limited possibilities in camera movements. And that the camera doesn't look as cool.
Had I been a pro studio photographer using say Hasselblad there would have been very strong reasons to stay with the format regardless of competition, as I would know the system and the workflow, and I would probably already be dependent on the "Hassy look" in terms of color which would be hard to reproduce in a different brand (almost no pro is using custom profiling for their mainline work). While I think it's quite easy to make current customers stay in the upgrade cycle, it seems to me that it must be harder to convince new photographers already used to some 135 system to move into MFD rather than getting the highest end 135.
-
In the following gallery there are pictures shot with a number of different DSLR's and also MF over time http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Selected-Landscape-Gallery/
It should be easy without looking at the info button to see which ones are from which kind of camera, right? :)
Yes, depending on how much post processing has been done and also the photographer. I've seen your work before and its very nice. I will add one point, besides preferring the more square ratios, and the look of the MF and LF images which appear to have more life to them (to me), I also just enjoy working with the larger viewfinders of MF cameras and particularly my Rolleiflex. The H5 and Leica S also have nice viewfinders. I find it really useful for composition. I also like the ergonomics of my Hy6 and the leaf shutters and high sync speeds help me in studio hand held. I have tried composing with the live view on the DLSR's and MFT cameras but this always results in an awkward hand position. So in summary on top of the look, I also just find I do better and enjoy more shooting with my MF cameras. YMMV
-
Yes, depending on how much post processing has been done and also the photographer. I've seen your work before and its very nice. I will add one point, besides preferring the more square ratios, and the look of the MF and LF images which appear to have more life to them (to me), I also just enjoy working with the larger viewfinders of MF cameras and particularly my Rolleiflex. The H5 and Leica S also have nice viewfinders. I find it really useful for composition. I also like the ergonomics of my Hy6 and the leaf shutters and high sync speeds help me in studio hand held. I have tried composing with the live view on the DLSR's and MFT cameras but this always results in an awkward hand position. So in summary on top of the look, I also just find I do better and enjoy more shooting with my MF cameras. YMMV
Thanks :) Well, I thought you would not that easily spot which ones were the MF shots. The gallery has pictures shot with the following cameras: Canon 10D, 20D, 5D, 5D III, 1Ds III, Nikon D800E, D810 and Phase One IQ160. I liked the viewfinder on the Phase One DF+ camera, but almost equally as much on the D800E, D810, 1Ds III and 5D III. I never compose using live view. I compose using the OVF and then I shoot in live view to have the mirror up and minimise shutter shock on the D810 and the Canons. I shoot mostly on a tripod for carefull composition and the lower shutter speeds in early mornings and late evenings. I like the IQ og the IQ160 very much, but I did not like the DF and DF+ camera bodies. Now the Canon 5DsR challenges the IQ160 for IQ. Not completely but not that far off. And at much lower prices and a much better user experience.
-
I shoot with a Sony A7r and Mamiya with both P25 and P45+ backs.
I use the Sony a lot because it's just so convenient and easy to use. However, I find the resulting file to be a bit harsh in comparison to the light sweet and airy feel of the Phase files. I'm not a pixel peeper but the MF has an intangible quality that escapes the Sony.
Although it's considered ancient now, the P25 and it's fat pixels give such a lovely rendition that I will take any day above the Sony. Technically inferior sure, but so what. It looks lovely.
Guess I use the Sony because I'm lazy and often pressed for time.
-
I agree, I also find 3::2 quite restrictive having shot with 67, square and 4x5.
you can cut of 2/3 tot 3/4 as you could do with a square format like the film medium format... it is not that difficult.
Nikon proposes a 2/3 a 4/5 a DX - enough to choose from... nothing new.
More on topic: i see an evolution is going on in the sense everybody can use a good camera since the costs of it gets lower and lower...
This discussion again shows the quality differences are small and will get smaller between the expensive medium format camera's and the cheaper 35mm ones.
So if every photographer can start working with the right equipment- it is up tot the photographer to make the difference...
Of course it has always been that way, but now more than ever.
-
... for landscape users without the most stable tripods it's not at all obvious that an MF back will be able to hold more rez than a stabilised 35mm camera of this new generation.
Clearly, the stabilization solution for a tripod-using DMF user whose current tripod is not good enough is to get a better tripod, not to change to a completely different system and format size. Meanwhile, Pentax is already rolling out lens-based IS for its "645" system, and for SLRs, lens-based does have the advantage of giving A stabilized image in the optical viewfinder.
Maybe the place for further progress in stabilization for the ">35mm" formats will come when someone offer a mirrorless system in such a format. If that happens, my guess is Pentax with its particular long-standing interest in providing bigger-than-35mm format cameras of maximum portability and hand-holdability, and its existing know-how in stabilization. More so since it is probably only the smaller medium formats like 44x33mm that will see much handheld use in the future, which is where in-camera IS is relevant. Leica should jump on this, given its tradition of small, agile mirrorless cameras and recent adoption of CMOS sensors, but I doubt it will.
-
I figure if they can make MF backs with multishot, then they can also make IBIS work with those sensors too. It's interesting to me that the new MFT cameras are adding multishot after IBIS.
Phase one hopefully will incorporate this in the future as they already have the gyros in their XF body now. Of course their viewfinder may still be lacking but IBIS would be a nice thing to have.
-
The first real A7RII images are trickling in on dpreview. They are pretty detailed. I think there is going to be a good market in high-rez lenses. Also, for landscape users without the most stable tripods it's not at all obvious that an MF back will be able to hold more rez than a stabilised 35mm camera of this new generation.
I think MF needs new tech. The gap is narrowing more and more.
Edmund
To obtain maximum image detail with high resolution 35 mm sSLR and MFDB cameras, one must use a good tripod and mirror lock up (excepting mirrorless cameras). In this situation, image stabilization is not relevant. When focusing via the reflex mirror, alignment issues between sensor and focusing screen/autofocus sensors may result in defocus of the captured image. For MFDB, this is discussed by Joseph Holmes here (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html) and here (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html).
Since live view focusing is done directly from the image projected on the sensor, many of the alignment issues are avoided and live view focusing is generally more accurate than autofocus or manual focus achieved via the autofocus sensor located off the image sensor somewhere in the camera body or via the focusing screen. However, workable live view currently requires a CMOS sensor and the highest resolution MFDBs are CCD and live view is not available.
Shutter vibrations also cause loss of image quality. Generally, leaf shutters have less vibration than focal plane shutters, so MFDB cameras using leaf shutters have an advantage over 35 mm interchangeable lens dSLRs which almost always use focal plane shutters. For MFDBs using a focal plane shutter, the larger size and mass of the focal plane shutter would be a disadvantage. Electronic first curtain shutters available in some 35 mm eliminates shutter vibration.
With these considerations in mind, it is not clear that an 80 MP MFDB in the field would be sharper than Canon 50 MP of Nikon 36 MP. The 50 MP MFDBs using the Sony CMOS should have a sharpness advantage over 35 mm under the conditions discussed above.
Regards,
Bill
-
I figure if they can make MF backs with multishot, then they can also make IBIS work with those sensors too. It's interesting to me that the new MFT cameras are adding multishot after IBIS.
Maybe: but a big difference between multi-shot and IBIS is that multi-shot only requires a couple of slow movements of the sensor, all of them along simple vertical and horizontal steps planned in advance, whereas IBIS requires numerous rapid movements in all directions with very low lag from detection of the camera's movements to the compensating sensor movement. That rapid response is where the extra acceleration forces required for a larger, heavier sensor come in. I am sure it it technologically feasible; the question is just how bulky the required servo-motor system would be, and if the demand for hand-holdability is enough to make it economically worthwhile.
(EDIT: dumb idea about passive maglev stabilization deleted!)
-
Here is a 42MP Sample from the A7rII + Zeiss 55mm (900$ – as you can see, you don't always need an Otus):
http://we.tl/HqvHylmbu4
Pretty close to a 40MP/50MP back, I think (had myself a 40MP back for 2 years, and don't really see a difference).
And at f/1,8 (!):
http://we.tl/vHXgqLDVer
Is MF really better? (certainly not at f1,8 ;) )
-
Here is a 42MP Sample from the A7rII + Zeiss 55mm (900$ – as you can see, you don't always need an Otus):
http://we.tl/HqvHylmbu4
Pretty close to a 40MP/50MP back, I think (had myself a 40MP back for 2 years, and don't really see a difference).
And at f/1,8 (!):
http://we.tl/vHXgqLDVer
Is MF really better? (certainly not at f1,8 ;) )
to be correct:
of course, MF is or can be better with the right lenses – especially in terms of resolution, but what I really wanted to say: the gap is pretty thin, and even sometimes, the much cheaper 35mm wins.
That is, why I don't regret the change to 35mm (except for the feeling when I take a picture. It is not photographing any more, it is more taking pictures with a tiny electronic device).
-
Is MF really better? (certainly not at f1,8 ;) )
MFDB: 44 33 (0.77 crop)
FF: 36 24 (1 crop)
APS-C: 22.2 14.8 (1.6 crop)
36x24mm 55mm f/1.8 ISO 100, when comparing with 44x33mm should (in my view) should use a 71mm lens at f/2.33 and ISO 60.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
-h
-
Here is a 42MP Sample from the A7rII + Zeiss 55mm (900$ – as you can see, you don't always need an Otus):
http://we.tl/HqvHylmbu4
Pretty close to a 40MP/50MP back, I think (had myself a 40MP back for 2 years, and don't really see a difference).
And at f/1,8 (!):
http://we.tl/vHXgqLDVer
Is MF really better? (certainly not at f1,8 ;) )
Since you asked, relatively, these may be decent by 35mm standards but by medium format standards I think they are pretty ropey.
Couldn't find the sharp point in the first one. The colour and tone is flat, colour depth seems wanting in some areas, the fringing and moire seem on the excessive side. Some of the aliasing is horrendous.
The 1.8 shot has enough spherical aberration to drive a truck through. That lens looks terrible, IMO, sorry.
Yes MF really is MUCH better. Even your wide open argument, at f2, the 100-S Summicron will blow you away.
-
Here is a 42MP Sample from the A7rII + Zeiss 55mm (900$ – as you can see, you don't always need an Otus):
http://we.tl/HqvHylmbu4
Pretty close to a 40MP/50MP back, I think (had myself a 40MP back for 2 years, and don't really see a difference).
It is indeed pretty good. There may be a bit more flare around reflection than what I get on MF and we don't know how the image would hold it if were processed to increase saturation a bit, but it is pretty good.
And at f/1,8 (!):
http://we.tl/vHXgqLDVer
For f/1.8, this is great. That lens is a success.
-
36x24mm 55mm f/1.8 ISO 100, when comparing with 44x33mm should (in my view) should use a 71mm lens at f/2.33 and ISO 60.
I agree about comparing using the larger format at about f=71mm, f/2.33, so as to be covering the same angular field of view and same effective aperture diameter, and thus having diffraction and OOF effects scale in proportion to image size. But unless the subject is moving, I would be happy for each camera to be used at whatever shutter speed and ISO sensitivity works best for that camera.
One hazard of comparing images taken at equal aperture ratio with different formats and different focal lengths is that the resulting DOF change could artificially make the smaller format image look "flatter" and the larger format image more "three dimensional", to quote some words that often arise in such comparisons.
On the other hand, the ability of a larger format to get the same DOF, OOF and diffraction effects (when viewing the resulting images at equal apparent size) at a higher f-stop could give an advantage in optical performance through lower aberrations.
-
Small sensor user, geekish amateur, here. My photos don't rate a MF sensor yet.
Do any of the MF sensors have the sensor shift technology? For instance, Olympus http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/crazy-but-true-olympus-sensor-captures-details-between-the-pixels-1283486
The thought is, one of the serious problems about chip manufacture is scale-up - fewer large sensors per wafer, more risk of defect per large sensor, fewer large sensors sold = considerably higher price for extra-large sensor. Plus, design costs for extra-large sensor. Probably the design costs for implementing a sensor shift technology in a MF camera would be lower than getting more pixels. I suppose that for tripod-based architectural and product photography, a sensor shift technology would be fine. Turn it off if you want to shoot weddings or fashion.
-
Do any of the MF sensors have the sensor shift technology?
That technology appeared in MF first, actually. At present, you can get it from Hasselblad and Sinar.
-
That technology appeared in MF first, actually. At present, you can get it from Hasselblad and Sinar.
AFAIK this "officially" originated with Jenoptik.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Sensor shift has been around for long in MFD. It is not used as a cost saver, the main advantage is that it avoids colour interpolation. The sensor is moved a pixel width between exposures. So for ecah point, four exposures are made using each of the RGBG filters.
On some cameras it is possible to make exposures with half pixel steps. In this case resolution is increased, at least if the pixels are small fill factor.
The technology does make the sensor cheaper, as sensor size is not affected.
Best regards
Erik
Small sensor user, geekish amateur, here. My photos don't rate a MF sensor yet.
Do any of the MF sensors have the sensor shift technology? For instance, Olympus http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/crazy-but-true-olympus-sensor-captures-details-between-the-pixels-1283486
The thought is, one of the serious problems about chip manufacture is scale-up - fewer large sensors per wafer, more risk of defect per large sensor, fewer large sensors sold = considerably higher price for extra-large sensor. Plus, design costs for extra-large sensor. Probably the design costs for implementing a sensor shift technology in a MF camera would be lower than getting more pixels. I suppose that for tripod-based architectural and product photography, a sensor shift technology would be fine. Turn it off if you want to shoot weddings or fashion.