Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mike Sellers on December 26, 2015, 08:54:06 pm
-
Is anyone using a 80mp to capture nature? Why? Is there a practical reason for shooting with 80mp? How much is enough?
Mike
-
Big prints. This is a 43" x 57" print and I could print it larger. Image captured using a Phase One XF and a IQ280 back.
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
Love your prints and subjects. Are you stitching your panos? Wouldn`t this mage some very large files?
-
Love your prints and subjects. Are you stitching your panos? Wouldn`t this mage some very large files?
Stitching is indeed a great way to achieve very high resolutions without breaking the bank. It doesn't apply to all scenes though.
These images captured last week are between 85 and 200mp, done with stitching:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1610/23686742120_4815a7a566_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching and DoF stacking
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1666/23956322136_b8e468c45a_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5785/23686742960_25034bf82b_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Mike for the kind feedback. This image is a single shot from my shoot last fall with my friend Tim Wolcott. I have stitched and have some files at 1.7gb as the unrezzed up file.
Steven
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
Well, you can achieve any size of image using stitching, and it works amazingly often…
Best regards
Erik
Stitching is indeed a great way to achieve very high resolutions without breaking the bank. It doesn't apply to all scenes though.
These images captured last week are between 85 and 200mp, done with stitching:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1610/23686742120_4815a7a566_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching and DoF stacking
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1666/23956322136_b8e468c45a_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5785/23686742960_70a82faa07_o.jpg)
D810 + Otus 55mm f1.4 - stitching
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is anyone using a 80mp to capture nature? Why? Is there a practical reason for shooting with 80mp? How much is enough?
Mike
Go to a Rodney Lough JR. Gallery and look at their more recent very large prints. Look at them really close, nose to the print close.
They were made using files from a PhaseOne IQ180 back, several files stitched in a lot of instances.
That is just one example of many.
Is it 100% necessary? Depends on what you want to achieve.
-
I don't know why one should use 80mp for landscapes, but I do know that 10 years ago 80mp backs didn't exist (60mp neither), large prints of landscapes where sold at those days too and people could provide absolutely stunning prints at up to 4.5x6 feet of them...
In fact, I don't find any type of photography (not only landscape) that has improved a bit (actually quality of photographs may be considerably worst now if compared with the past) because of... pixel count!
-
Hi,
I think that there are many users shooting 80 MP backs for shooting landscape. Landscape images often have a lot of fine detail. Tree tops for instance.
Some landscape photographers sell wall art, for instance and it tends to be printed large.
Now, it is possible to make decent size prints from say 20-24 MP, say 30x40" is quite OK, but I am pretty sure that 40-50 MP would show advantages at that size. Print larger than that? I would think that 80MP would show it's advantage.
What I think I have seen is that say 24 MP is pretty well enough for 16x23", at that size I cannot tell apart a 24MP and a 40MP print, but going up to something 23x32 I am pretty sure the advantage of 40 MP will show.
That said, there can be a lot of discussion about viewing distance, but I feel it is good if you can check a print at any distance.
So, yes, I think that 80 MP is a good thing. If it is worth the money? That is an another question.
Best regards
Erik
Is anyone using a 80mp to capture nature? Why? Is there a practical reason for shooting with 80mp? How much is enough?
Mike
-
Printing with a 72ppi output means that one has information of more than 9 pixels included on one (only) square mm of a HUGE print... and that is without any up-sampling method applied... Excuse me, but I would care more on the quality of my pixels than worry if instead of 9 of them in one square mm are 16 or 25...
EDIT: Actually, I would worry much more about the lighting (hence the "looks") of my print, rather than worry if one plays Sherlock Holmes (with a magnifier glass) on it... Also, I (highly) doubt that if one pays for it would appreciate the pixel count to the (lighting) presentation...
-
I don't know why one should use 80mp for landscapes, but I do know that 10 years ago 80mp backs didn't exist (60mp neither), large prints of landscapes where sold at those days too and people could provide absolutely stunning prints at up to 4.5x6 feet of them...
In fact, I don't find any type of photography (not only landscape) that has improved a bit (actually quality of photographs may be considerably worst now if compared with the past) because of... pixel count!
Yes. But just because a print is sold does not mean it is a great print.
Most of the very high end landscape photographs 10 years ago were made using 4x5 or 8x10 film. 8x10 was and still is stunning and unequalled by digital. Resolution wise a 2 to 3 image stitch of 80mp files gets close but there is something about the larger capture format of 8x10 and the reduced rate of enlargement when making prints (compared to smaller formats) that makes it look so so good. Color is also amazing with the more recent films.
If I could shoot any format for landscape disregarding cost and convenience it would be 8x10 film (the latest color neg film) plus the appropriate scanning workflow.
-
I have used the IQ180 for quite some time now...
large prints - yes I like more nose in the print and enjoy prints from close up or far away :)
Files can be huge, in the GBs.
incredible when combined with the right Rodie/SK glass
Works well with tech cam movements, again, with the right glass
At the time, I found the 80 to be better in DR and allowed for longer exposure time than the 60MP backs
I still don't think anything comes close to the IQ180/280/380/Credo 80 for resolution with tech lenses. Also, pano stitching can get you the resolution, but you also do this with an 80MP back for even more resolution, but more importantly, there are compositions I cannot get with pano stitching that I can with flat stitches.
-
Yes. But just because a print is sold does not mean it is a great print.
Most of the very high end landscape photographs 10 years ago were made using 4x5 or 8x10 film. 8x10 was and still is stunning and unequalled by digital. Resolution wise a 2 to 3 image stitch of 80mp files gets close but there is something about the larger capture format of 8x10 and the reduced rate of enlargement when making prints (compared to smaller formats) that makes it look so so good. Color is also amazing with the more recent films.
If I could shoot any format for landscape disregarding cost and convenience it would be 8x10 film (the latest color neg film) plus the appropriate scanning workflow.
Prints don't sell because they are ...prints! Prints sell because they are photo-graphs! ...and photo-graphs don't matter if they have info of 9 pixels per square mm of them, or 16, or 25, or more... they are photo-graphs with enough detail anyway!
-
Really, nothing compares to a 80 megapixel camera. With the new lenses NOTHING compares to the dynamic range, color rendition or sharpness. And yes, I have used them all, and yes I invent make the first pigment prints so side by side if you disagree than prove it. Because I have and I also was the head consultant to the Smithsonian for print technologies. This really is a discussion that is stupid, but i think most people know the advantages of digital.
But if you think 8x10 is better than go back to the antiquated camera!!!
-
Wow. What an honor to be in your presence Tim.
You must be a real joy to work with at the Smithsonian.
Mark
-
I didn't mean it that way. I know it sounded that way, I meant to get back to revising this but someone here really annoyed me and it came out in this article the wrong way. BUt what I do see is there are many many comments made on all photo sites without some sense of reality. Most have not seen what can be really achieved by a 80 megapixels camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it with proper printing. So if you really want to see it then please come to the gallery that I just built using my new printing technology in Rancho Mirage. To many people see web images and not seeing a really well executed photograph properly displayed. And yes I do have some 4x5 and 8x10. But if I could I would love to back in time with a Phase One camera and reshoot the old ones.
I don't work for the Smithsonian any more after they tried to steal my technology and threatened me with the 2nd largest law firm in the world. And they used the good old line who do you think you are were the US Government. By the way guess who one the battle, not them.
This is problem with the internet, I write as a matter a fact and it does not come off very well on the internet. I'm not trying to offend anyone but everyone should see all the data before making opinions without seeing some well executed work. Its funny no one said this about Ansel or Brett Weston when they talked this way. Tim
-
I maxed out a very steady 22mpixel 5Dm2 file at best with Fractal enlarging to about 30x40" and it is good even if you are are pretty close to it. But don't kid yourself. Closer inspection... if the client didn't have to have it 30x40 in a office space, I would have recommended the 28x36". (but closest you can step to it is 10feet, so its ok).
If you want to put quality where your pixels are, you will surely see and love the difference of high mpixels of a digitalback or multi-shot , stitched file to output. I printed files from a P45 and even that was a beauty to do 40x60. Lots of detail.
But if you expect people to be paying top dollar from some numbered prints, they better pass the walk up and sniff the paper test and pixels better be there. Otherwise, I would question the commitment and value in care the artist puts in the work!
Good art dealers/collectors know this stuff. I have turned some work into wall paper, and while that is lower res printing, if you wanted to do a Duratran large backlight, its nice when the details are all top notch sharp with meaty files. there is no substitute.
-
Why 80 instead of 60, or even 50 megapixels may be a more relevant question considering the available options. If you like high resolving power 80 megapixels is the current best (except for stitching) so just go for it. However if you have economy considerations, or lens compatibility considerations for tech cams a 60MP back is probably wiser option.
I'd like to have say 400-600 megapixels or so to really outresolve the optic system, make sure all digital artifacts are nullified by diffraction. That's not available today though, and today I don't think it's too big a difference between 50 and 80 megapixels.
To me making a print look nice big is not necessarily that the eye is out-resolved on nosing distance (although that is cool), but that the print lacks ugly artifacts on nosing distance, and what's ugly is a matter of taste. For example I prefer the structure of film grain much more than digital jaggies.
I prefer an oversized digital print look fuzzy at nosing distance rather than having false detail. I don't like the look of fractal upsizing either, I rather have that standard bicubic blur. Previously I shot at f/11 most of the time, but nowadays I shoot at f/16 with my 6um pixels (50-60 MP backs). Why? To reduce aliasing artifacts and give oversized prints a smoother look up close. May sound backwards to reduce resolution by diffraction to print larger, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've done my own tests and come to the conclusion that I prefer that nosing look, and welcome the increased depth of field. Of course on normal viewing distance it doesn't matter, resolution is fine. Digital sharpening techniques makes it much easier to control the negative effects of diffraction than film too.
It also matters which type of landscapes you shoot. 90% of my landscape photos are close distance shots often 4:5 portrait format rather than wide panorama shots with lots of tiny details at infinity. Actually the background is often slightly out of focus in my shots due to limits of depth of field (and my desire to get a subtle layering effect in the scene). The grand panorama type of shot gains more from having high resolving power as it's more likely to be printed big and invites the viewer to step close and look at the details.
I've attached one shot to show an example where very high resolving power doesn't really provide much value. It's made with a 33 MP back and you don't really gain more meaningful detail with more resolving power. I actually didn't have any recent shot which show the opposite. But the best example where you really want lots of resolution is huge environmental group portraits in panorama format where you have relatively small faces in the frame, the viewer is then very much invited to step close.
Personally I don't stitch any longer as I don't think it's a satisfying way to do photography. For the same reason I don't focus stack either. One scene in one shot, ideally without need to crop in post -- that's how I like to make photographs. It's all in my head though, and if you don't have any issues regarding photographic enjoyment when it comes to stitching it's a great way to gain that extra resolution when you need it, and I'd say in most cases when that extra resolving power actually means anything are in such situations where stitching and stacking works well. Of course stitching with 80MP back gives you more pixels faster than a 50MP back, but I think the importance of high MP count is in any case further reduced in this scenario.
-
I didn't mean it that way. I know it sounded that way, I meant to get back to revising this but someone here really annoyed me and it came out in this article the wrong way. BUt what I do see is there are many many comments made on all photo sites without some sense of reality. Most have not seen what can be really achieved by a 80 megapixels camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it with proper printing. So if you really want to see it then please come to the gallery that I just built using my new printing technology in Rancho Mirage. To many people see web images and not seeing a really well executed photograph properly displayed. And yes I do have some 4x5 and 8x10. But if I could I would love to back in time with a Phase One camera and reshoot the old ones.
I don't work for the Smithsonian any more after they tried to steal my technology and threatened me with the 2nd largest law firm in the world. And they used the good old line who do you think you are were the US Government. By the way guess who one the battle, not them.
This is problem with the internet, I write as a matter a fact and it does not come off very well on the internet. I'm not trying to offend anyone but everyone should see all the data before making opinions without seeing some well executed work. Its funny no one said this about Ansel or Brett Weston when they talked this way. Tim
Tim, care to share this new printing technology? Are you going to sell it?
-
Tim, care to share this new printing technology? Are you going to sell it?
A good idea would be to develop some kind of very large panel of high density and high resolution (Retina-like) monitors for contact printing. That should give you enough pixel density to surpass inkjets, provided you can find photographic paper that big and with enough resolution to keep up.
-
This is problem with the internet, I write as a matter a fact and it does not come off very well on the internet. I'm not trying to offend anyone but everyone should see all the data before making opinions without seeing some well executed work.
Fair enough Tim and, yes, it doesn't take much for ones comment to be misinterpreted.
To your second point, I guess part of the problem is that very few of us will ever have
the opportunity to see ALL the data in order to inform our opinions and, thus, rely on
interpreting second hand information from those more experienced such as yourself to
gain more insight.
When that information is shared with aggression, whether intended or not, it sort of makes
it difficult to treat such information with much more credibility than that spouted by some of the pretenders who seem to relish in reading their own words.
Moving on, I look forward to hearing more about your new printing technology
Mark
-
Yes, Sir!
One hundred percent with you!
Best regards
Erik
Why 80 instead of 60, or even 50 megapixels may be a more relevant question considering the available options. If you like high resolving power 80 megapixels is the current best (except for stitching) so just go for it. However if you have economy considerations, or lens compatibility considerations for tech cams a 60MP back is probably wiser option.
I'd like to have say 400-600 megapixels or so to really outresolve the optic system, make sure all digital artifacts are nullified by diffraction. That's not available today though, and today I don't think it's too big a difference between 50 and 80 megapixels.
To me making a print look nice big is not necessarily that the eye is out-resolved on nosing distance (although that is cool), but that the print lacks ugly artifacts on nosing distance, and what's ugly is a matter of taste. For example I prefer the structure of film grain much more than digital jaggies.
I prefer an oversized digital print look fuzzy at nosing distance rather than having false detail. I don't like the look of fractal upsizing either, I rather have that standard bicubic blur. Previously I shot at f/11 most of the time, but nowadays I shoot at f/16 with my 6um pixels (50-60 MP backs). Why? To reduce aliasing artifacts and give oversized prints a smoother look up close. May sound backwards to reduce resolution by diffraction to print larger, but that's exactly what I'm doing. I've done my own tests and come to the conclusion that I prefer that nosing look, and welcome the increased depth of field. Of course on normal viewing distance it doesn't matter, resolution is fine. Digital sharpening techniques makes it much easier to control the negative effects of diffraction than film too.
It also matters which type of landscapes you shoot. 90% of my landscape photos are close distance shots often 4:5 portrait format rather than wide panorama shots with lots of tiny details at infinity. Actually the background is often slightly out of focus in my shots due to limits of depth of field (and my desire to get a subtle layering effect in the scene). The grand panorama type of shot gains more from having high resolving power as it's more likely to be printed big and invites the viewer to step close and look at the details.
I've attached one shot to show an example where very high resolving power doesn't really provide much value. It's made with a 33 MP back and you don't really gain more meaningful detail with more resolving power. I actually didn't have any recent shot which show the opposite. But the best example where you really want lots of resolution is huge environmental group portraits in panorama format where you have relatively small faces in the frame, the viewer is then very much invited to step close.
Personally I don't stitch any longer as I don't think it's a satisfying way to do photography. For the same reason I don't focus stack either. One scene in one shot, ideally without need to crop in post -- that's how I like to make photographs. It's all in my head though, and if you don't have any issues regarding photographic enjoyment when it comes to stitching it's a great way to gain that extra resolution when you need it, and I'd say in most cases when that extra resolving power actually means anything are in such situations where stitching and stacking works well. Of course stitching with 80MP back gives you more pixels faster than a 50MP back, but I think the importance of high MP count is in any case further reduced in this scenario.
-
Why not? 80MP is a good starting point for a lot of images, but it's all relative to the output and subject matter. Stitching doesn't work well when things keep moving on you.
-
Thanks Mike for the kind feedback. This image is a single shot from my shoot last fall with my friend Tim Wolcott. I have stitched and have some files at 1.7gb as the unrezzed up file.
Steven
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
Maybe not the best thread to comment, specially since I see others great work as well, but I think the point to the OP has already been made.....
Your images of dense trees are just wonderful. Color and my imagination of detail when enlarged...but most importantly the feeling you must have in the location. Are any of those images artfully created by multiplying trees and backgrounds, or are there locations with such density of trees? (Autumn Glow, Sunshine in Aspen, etc). Great work! If you have created the images with creative editing, it is great work, and totally expected in scenic work that is supposed to be aesthetically perfect.
-
Phil
Thank you for the kind feedback. All the images on my website are real. Nothing has been removed or added to the images. Recently, I just started stitching panoramic images, all but a few of the panoramic images are from a panoramic film camera. The images were scanned and colour matched to the slides. I have spent over 12 years for almost a month a year photographing the north american aspen forests. Sometimes it has taken hours or days in the same location waiting for the right conditions. Fyi, we have printed these images at lengths up to ten feet.
Steven
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
Is anyone using a 80mp to capture nature? Why? Is there a practical reason for shooting with 80mp? How much is enough?
Mike
If you are asking the question then you don't need more.
I know a very famous landscape photographer with an 80MP Phase One that he was given because he is a very famous landscape photographer. However he still shoots with the same film camera that made him a very famous landscape photographer. Whatever pixels you need to give the required PPI you require is enough.
-
Here in Europe film has a very strong position in the art world. It's common that photographers which do both commercial and art do their commercial work digitally and their art using film. It seems to me that in the US there's a higher acceptance for digital.
I think part of the reason artists often use film is that the layman audience (and gallerists) thinks it's more "real photography", so it's not really about quality. That the film more often than not is scanned and post-processed as any digital picture they don't really know or care about, but there's still a few that use an analog process end to end.
-
Tim,
I'm just curious, I don't do any printing myself or very often prints, but I would like to know if you can divulge what your new printing technique or theory is please. I quite understand if you want/need to keep it tp yourself.
-
Is anyone using a 80mp to capture nature? Why? Is there a practical reason for shooting with 80mp? How much is enough?
Mike
I shoot with an 80mp back because I can’t buy a back with 120mp yet.
-
I shoot with an 80mp back because I can’t buy a back with 120mp yet.
Yep. I think with a bayer sensor the more pixels the better if the quality per pixels can be retained or even improved. Lets say we upscaled the Sony A7RII sensor up to the size of the one in the IQ180. That would make it what? about 135MP? That should make a lot of us more than happy. With full color pixels 80mp would be plenty.
-
I shoot with an 80mp back because I can’t buy a back with 120mp yet.
Best comment yet! I shoot with an IQ180 because I can. Plus I just produced an 80x40 panorama of the Grand Canyon even the smaller 60x30 and 40x30 shows incredible details and people love them.
Like Wayne I'll keep shoot the 80 until a 120 or larger is released....
-
Hi,
More is better for sure. But there is also something called good enough and something called diminishing returns. Technically, I would guess that we may run into diminishing returns in many cases, due to workflow limitations and diffraction. But, I think good enough sets in before that.
Again, definition of what is good enough may depend on both subject and observer. Just a small example:
Once upon the time I was shooting 12 MP APS-C. With that format I could do decent level A2 size prints. Than 24MP full frame came around and I obviously made some comparison. Surprise, the 24 MP full frame where much better, the prints not so much. In at least one case I could not make any difference in A2-size prints.
So, I went on to 39 MP (on a P45+). But I still make a few prints from my 12 MP APS-C era, as it was my most productive period. An A2-size print I made for my latest exhibition was made from APS-C at 12 MP and even hand held. But, another image had a lot of dust specs. I realised that those dust specs were birds, but they were not resolved. Surface texture, like sunlit mountains, were just fine.
I am pretty sure that good lenses of today exceed the resolution of sensor over a large part of the image area. No, you don't go into Otus or Rodenstock territory for that, just have a decent workflow. But, it may just happen that there will be little benefits much of time. But, when the subject is demanding, more pixels will always shine.
Another way to see it is that more pixels render the image more accurately, thus having more leeway for post-processing.
The simple truth is that more is more in science and technology, and the art of photography is based on technology.
Best regards
Erik
Best comment yet! I shoot with an IQ180 because I can. Plus I just produced an 80x40 panorama of the Grand Canyon even the smaller 60x30 and 40x30 shows incredible details and people love them.
Like Wayne I'll keep shoot the 80 until a 120 or larger is released....
-
I always said that when 60mpx backs with a decent interface (Credo / IQ etc) were "cheap" enough, I'd jump into the digital fold. Scanning 4x5" and 6x7cm film with a Flextight 949, I got/get a file that is approximately 24" on the short edge at 300dpi. With my Credo 60 I get a file that's approximately 22" on the short edge at 300dpi but with an astonishing increase in captured detail due to a lack of film grain. What I've found however is that with my limited practice in upresing, film scans tend to hold up better–give a more pleasing look due to random grain structure and lack of jaggies–when pushed to monster sizes. I'm sure the 80mpx backs are awesome and better in this regard (marginally, perhaps) but I've never used one.
I think a pertinent question to this thread is what techniques do people use to upres their digital files to the monster sizes they print at?
-
I think a pertinent question to this thread is what techniques do people use to upres their digital files to the monster sizes they print at?
Since one of the advantages of using high resolution MFD sensors is the ability to print large, I agree that this is a pertinent question. So far I've been upressing my 60 Mp (8984 x 6732) files in Photoshop CC - this seems to work fine on modest "enlargements" (up to 45" on the long dimension @ 300 ppi, or about 1.5x) but I'm guessing there are more sophisticated ways to do this, which may make a difference for even larger prints.
-John
-
More is better for sure. But there is also something called good enough
While I agree, the problem I have is when I take a shot I don't know how much will be good enough ...
Ctein had an interesting article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/12/the-limits-to-growth.html) about where things might be going over on the online photographer. Always an interesting read. I responded to a featured comment which sort of talked about the good enough idea, which is also featured below the article. Rather than rewriting my entire concept here, those interested can take a look.
-
Since one of the advantages of using high resolution MFD sensors is the ability to print large, I agree that this is a pertinent question. So far I've been upressing my 60 Mp (8984 x 6732) files in Photoshop CC - this seems to work fine on modest "enlargements" (up to 45" on the long dimension @ 300 ppi, or about 1.5x) but I'm guessing there are more sophisticated ways to do this, which may make a difference for even larger prints.
-John
When you use CC to upres, do you use the new resampling algorithms? Do you do another round of sharpening afterwards?
-
Hi,
Ctein's article is interesting, but I also feel he is a bit on the optimistic side. He is obviously right about bayer sensor wasting a significant part of the light, but we have not yet seen a better solution. Also, I would also think that pixels can be shrunk quite a lot, but shrinking pixels reduces DR. Low DR (at the pixel level) and need of high bit readout is depending on adequate pixel size. It seems that the Nikon D810 is close to needing > 14 bit of data.
The way I see it, sensor makes improve their designs and technologies in small steps. Thinner wiring shifts optimal pixel sizes downwards. Sony's latest sensors put the photodiode in front of the wiring, just as an example. I am pretty sure the current MP counts are chosen to match current technology.
I would also think that lenses keep up with high resolution sensors. As long as aliasing artefacts like jaggies, false detail staircase effect are visible the imaging system has potential for higher resolution sensors.
But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…
Another thing is, in film times we were shooting Tri-X, but for best image quality we used Panatomic-X. For larger formats we used 120 film (Pentax 67 in my case), than we had Technical Pan. High resolution sensors are a bit like high resolution film, although they often have good high ISO performance due to their noise free readout.
Getting back to 80 MP digital, I would say that there may be a visual advantage of say using an 80 MP system over a 50 MP system in large prints (say from 30"x40" and up). Visible or not may depend on processing, viewing conditions and the viewer. A 120/160/240/360/520 MP system would have an advantage over that 80 MP system - how much advantage? It depends.
Just to say, it is easy to test, just make a stitched pano with your 80 MP back vertically mounted, that would essentially double the number of pixels to 160MP (if keeping field of view). Than just print it at you preferred size. I am pretty sure that you have done that.
There is a very good reason to use the best technology available and that is that shooting opportunities don't come back.
Best regards
Erik
While I agree, the problem I have is when I take a shot I don't know how much will be good enough ...
Ctein had an interesting article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/12/the-limits-to-growth.html) about where things might be going over on the online photographer. Always an interesting read. I responded to a featured comment which sort of talked about the good enough idea, which is also featured below the article. Rather than rewriting my entire concept here, those interested can take a look.
-
Ctein had an interesting article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/12/the-limits-to-growth.html) about where things might be going over on the online photographer. Always an interesting read. I responded to a featured comment which sort of talked about the good enough idea, which is also featured below the article. Rather than rewriting my entire concept here, those interested can take a look.
The article is interesting, but the idea that technology still has plenty of room for improvement omits a hard reality: the quantum nature of light. With the present high iso fashion, we are pretty close to counting individual photons. For example, at ISO6400, typical values collected by your individual camera pixels will be between 1 and 1000 photons.
-
I think the only reasons for a high MP count are the ability to have a lot of flexibility when it comes to cropping and the quality when it comes to big prints.
Sure, you can get a usable 100cm / 40inch print from say..a 20 or 30MP file - but 60 or 80MP offer much more detail and it appears sharper on close inspection (even though all are 'sharp').
Just think about buying/selling prints - you would have a hard time selling blurry, interpolated photos compared to detailed prints where you can see the leaves on a distant tree...
-
Ctein's article is interesting, but I also feel he is a bit on the optimistic side. He is obviously right about bayer sensor wasting a significant part of the light, but we have not yet seen a better solution.
Hi Erik,
I'm not too sure about his comment: "Those Bayer arrays we use today are only about 25% efficient, at best. Those colored filters toss out out three-fourths of the light before it even gets to the sensor". It sounds like he is falling in the old trap that is often used by Foveon proponents.
It is true that to separate Chromaticity from Luminance, a filter is used, and filters absorb or reflect part of the spectum. However, in the Bayer CFA, the filtered out colors, say 2/3rd in a worst case of full spectrum light, are added back by interpolation from neighboring sensor elements. So no light is wasted, it is just partly sampled and partly interpolated, and the sum is larger than the filtered part alone.
In addition, some parts of the spectrum are filtered out, but maybe they do not exist in the subject to begin with, in its color we are capturing.
The only thing that can be said is that filters do lose some of the incoming energy (they are not spectrally pure, peak transmission is less than 100%) and convert it it to heat. I'm sure there will be methods available to separate color in a more efficient way, but the cost will be relatively high for the gain that can be had.
I would also think that lenses keep up with high resolution sensors. As long as aliasing artefacts like jaggies, false detail staircase effect are visible the imaging system has potential for higher resolution sensors.
But, diffraction sets a limit on the optical system at least when we need to stop down. A way to get around that is increasing the size of the sensor and using techniques to extend stop at non diffracted apertures, like using "Scheimpflug" and stacking. Technical cameras with tilts and proper workflow come to mind…
Lenses and diffraction will limit the ultimate resolution we can get, but denser sampling also increases the potential for Deconvolution Capture sharpening. The more accurate we can model and analyze the (spatially variant) image blur, the more of the original input signal/resolution we can restore.
There is a very good reason to use the best technology available and that is that shooting opportunities don't come back.
Indeed, and because better technology often also produces better image quality.
Cheers,
Bart
-
With 9 (real) pixels of capture packed in (only) 1 mm^2 of print (meaning 72ppi) and provided there are no artifacts, there can't be any luck of detail whatsoever, especially if one masters well the process of printing and care has been taken on the glass used for the capture....
-
I'm not too sure about his comment: "Those Bayer arrays we use today are only about 25% efficient, at best. Those colored filters toss out out three-fourths of the light before it even gets to the sensor". It sounds like he is falling in the old trap that is often used by Foveon proponents.
It is true that to separate Chromaticity from Luminance, a filter is used, and filters absorb or reflect part of the spectum. However, in the Bayer CFA, the filtered out colors, say 2/3rd in a worst case of full spectrum light, are added back by interpolation from neighboring sensor elements. So no light is wasted, it is just partly sampled and partly interpolated, and the sum is larger than the filtered part alone.
In addition, some parts of the spectrum are filtered out, but maybe they do not exist in the subject to begin with, in its color we are capturing.
The only thing that can be said is that filters do lose some of the incoming energy (they are not spectrally pure, peak transmission is less than 100%) and convert it it to heat. I'm sure there will be methods available to separate color in a more efficient way, but the cost will be relatively high for the gain that can be had.
Video cameras have used a more efficient technology for ages: the 3 sensors models use interference filters to separate light into transmitted and reflected bands. This allows to split a beam into its colour components without losing energy. It gains a little less than 1 ISO value compared to a camera with a chip of the same size and a Bayer array.
The technology is not used for photo cameras, because the beam splitter imposes conditions on the lens which are not compatible with interchangeable lenses for photography.
-
The technology is not used for photo cameras, because the beam splitter imposes conditions on the lens which are not compatible with interchangeable lenses for photography.
Hi,
Not only that, but it's getting harder to realign/register the split sensor images as resolution gets higher. It's also heavier and more bulky to have three sensors than to split at the sensor/photosite level itself.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When you use CC to upres, do you use the new resampling algorithms? Do you do another round of sharpening afterwards?
Generally I use "preserve details." As I intimated in my previous post, nothing too sophisticated but it seems to work for these modest enlargements up to 1.5x native. Sharpening is always done as the last step, after resizing.
In terms of the benefits of higher resolution (the original topic of this thread), I find the images from the 60 Mp sensor to be quite stunning in detail. One hits a point of diminishing returns in terms of diffraction when stopping down (at f/11, Airy disc of ~15 microns - compare to 6 micron pixel pitch of the 60 Mp full frame MF sensor). However as previously mentioned here and elsewhere, more data is (are?) a good thing but an 80 Mp MFDB is simply out of reach for me.
- John
-
Interesting comments about Ctein's post. I took two things from his article that intrigued me as technology develops.
first I'm not an engineer, but regarding the idea that a sensel is currently inefficient, I'm not sure how inefficient they are, but certainly they have some inefficiency in them. If you filter out all visible light other than a narrow spectrum, it seems inefficient. If there were a viable panchromatic sensor, where the sensel could not only measure the amount of light but the frequency, seems it would be a game changer. No bayer filter, no artifacts from demoisacing, and no filtering of any photon that hits the sensor. Seems pretty efficient compared to what we have. As to whether that's commercially viable in the near future ... don't ask me. He seems to think so, but maybe near future to him is a couple of decades.
The one that interested me more and which I've heard is being worked on is the idea of a sensor that can reset any individual sensel when it reaches max charge, and then continue to count. Seems to me this would be a dramatic increase in dynamic range ... blown pixels wouldn't exist.
However, the main reason I linked it wasn't his article but my rather lengthy response to his article which is directed at the original topic of why 80mp. I realize now I should have just restated here rather than link it so here it is. (for context, I was mainly responding to an earlier comment, not Ctein's article, that was trying to compare camera technology to computer technology, using the analogy to point out that current computer technology has surpassed the needs of 99% of the users out there so there isn't much reason to continue to upgrade - and that camera/sensor technology has evolved in a similar path.)
"Regarding the idea of most people not needing it (I assume we are discussing buyers of photo gear which means they are after more than their very capable smart phone can deliver), I have a slightly different perspective. To me it’s about most captures not needing it—but then some do. As one who produces prints for photographers, at least 20–30 large prints or canvas wraps a month leave my store which suffer from serious quality issues because someone wants a bigger print than the detail in the image can pleasantly render. Many small prints also suffer because they have been cropped and not enough data is left to render the image at the desired size.
"So to me it's not 'if' we need need, it, but 'when' we need it. When I'm out shooting, most of the things I shoot could have been easy handled by a less capable device, but then a few times a year I get an image that looks best printed large (which happens to be what 'floats my boat' so to speak). I've had discussions with many customers who say they are completely happy with their current gear, because they never print larger than 13x19, then they show up and want a 40x60. We never know when we are going to capture that special image or need to do some serious cropping. Ironically this means our gear is good enough for most of what we shoot, but perhaps isn’t good enough for our best work."
"As far as the computer analogy, I agree for most needs were met by computers a few generations ago. But I’m not sure we are using less capable computing devices, it's more about a new class of device supplying what we need in a more convenient form factor. A current iPad Pro has more computing and graphics power than most computers of just a few years ago, so the device is still continuing to get more powerful, but the form factor has changed the game. To compare that to cameras, perhaps the 99% number regarding photography works if you consider everyone who takes pictures (which is most of the human population).
"But just as computers can be broken down based on needs, there are niche markets of people who need more computing power. And fortunately there are enough photographers who want more than a cell phone can deliver so we have a niche market size large enough to appeal to several companies to supply those needs. Once we narrow our field to this group I don’t think the 99% number is accurate (again because I think at that point we are talking about captures which need it, not people).
"I don't know whether a game changing new form factor is in store for photographers (wouldn't surprise me) but as the equipment becomes more capable through progression as outlined by Ctein, many who don't think they need it will find on occasion they wish they had it. The good news is if you don’t want or can’t afford to be on the bleeding edge in gear and don’t rush out and buy the latest and greatest, at least there are enough photographers who do to keep driving the technology forward. This means eventually almost everyone will find occasion to be using better gear than they have today, and will find on some occasions, some captures benefit."
-
Hi Wayne,
I think you put it very well.
What scares me ab it is the hostility to progress among some users. It may be that we don't need what technology can deliver but we may need it one day.
Personally, I normally print at A2, maximising print size, because it is what my desktop printer can print. Now, I also have wall size limitations, but I really don't mind print large, and more pixels will always be helpful doing that. Also more pixels make never any harm, expect filling up the hard drive.
Now, nothing fills up the hard drive faster than 16-bit TIFFs, so the best way of handling disk space is to use a parametric workflow. Doing most of the work in Lightroom, Darktable or whatever and just optimising in Photoshop when needed.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting comments about Ctein's post. I took two things from his article that intrigued me as technology develops.
first I'm not an engineer, but regarding the idea that a pixel is currently inefficient, I'm not sure how inefficient they are, but certainly they have some inefficiency in them. If you filter out all visible light other than that a narrow spectrum, it seems inefficient. If there were a viable panchromatic sensor, where the sensel could not only measure the amount of light but the frequency, seems it would be a game changer. No bayer filter, no artifacts from demoisacing, and no filtering of any photon that hits the sensor. Seems pretty efficient compared to what we have. As to whether that's commercially viable in the near future ... don't ask me. He seems to think so, but maybe near future to him is a couple of decades.
The one that interested me more and which I've heard is being worked on is the idea of a sensor that can reset any individual sensel when it reaches max charge, and then continue to count. Seems to me this would be a dramatic increase in dynamic range ... blown pixels wouldn't exist.
However, the main reason I linked it wasn't his article but my rather lengthy response to his article which is directed at the original topic of why 80mp. I realize now I should have just restated here rather than link it so here it is. (for context, I was mainly responding to an earlier comment, not Ctein's article, that was trying to compare camera technology to computer technology, using the analogy to point out that current computer technology has surpassed the needs of 99% of the users out there so there isn't much reason to continue to upgrade - and that camera/sensor technology has evolved in a similar path.)
"Regarding the idea of most people not needing it (I assume we are discussing buyers of photo gear which means they are after more than their very capable smart phone can deliver), I have a slightly different perspective. To me it’s about most captures not needing it—but then some do. As one who produces prints for photographers, at least 20–30 large prints or canvas wraps a month leave my store which suffer from serious quality issues because someone wants a bigger print than the detail in the image can pleasantly render. Many small prints also suffer because they have been cropped and not enough data is left to render the image at the desired size.
"So to me it's not 'if' we need need, it, but 'when' we need it. When I'm out shooting, most of the things I shoot could have been easy handled by a less capable device, but then a few times a year I get an image that looks best printed large (which happens to be what 'floats my boat' so to speak). I've had discussions with many customers who say they are completely happy with their current gear, because they never print larger than 13x19, then they show up and want a 40x60. We never know when we are going to capture that special image or need to do some serious cropping. Ironically this means our gear is good enough for most of what we shoot, but perhaps isn’t good enough for our best work."
"As far as the computer analogy, I agree for most needs were met by computers a few generations ago. But I’m not sure we are using less capable computing devices, it's more about a new class of device supplying what we need in a more convenient form factor. A current iPad Pro has more computing and graphics power than most computers of just a few years ago, so the device is still continuing to get more powerful, but the form factor has changed the game. To compare that to cameras, perhaps the 99% number regarding photography works if you consider everyone who takes pictures (which is most of the human population).
"But just as computers can be broken down based on needs, there are niche markets of people who need more computing power. And fortunately there are enough photographers who want more than a cell phone can deliver so we have a niche market size large enough to appeal to several companies to supply those needs. Once we narrow our field to this group I don’t think the 99% number is accurate (again because I think at that point we are talking about captures which need it, not people).
"I don't know whether a game changing new form factor is in store for photographers (wouldn't surprise me) but as the equipment becomes more capable through progression as outlined by Ctein, many who don't think they need it will find on occasion they wish they had it. The good news is if you don’t want or can’t afford to be on the bleeding edge in gear and don’t rush out and buy the latest and greatest, at least there are enough photographers who do to keep driving the technology forward. This means eventually almost everyone will find occasion to be using better gear than they have today, and will find on some occasions, some captures benefit."
-
regarding the idea that a sensel is currently inefficient, I'm not sure how inefficient they are, but certainly they have some inefficiency in them. If you filter out all visible light other than a narrow spectrum, it seems inefficient.
Current sensors have some inefficiency, but:
-first, not that much, maybe 30%
-second, we would need large gains to see the difference. For example, one stop in ISO would need to double the efficiency. As I already wrote, with the present high iso fashion, we are pretty close to counting individual photons. For example, at ISO6400, typical values collected by your individual camera pixels will be between 1 and 1000 photons.
I am only describing iso here, but the same can be said for other values like dynamic range or resolution. We are not that far from the limits of light itself.
-
Hi,
Just to add, improving efficiency doesn't really matter if shooting landscape mostly. That just means higher ISO. Now, high ISO is often a good thing, like for stoping motion, but a single stop of ISO will not help that much.
Best regards
Erik
Current sensors have some inefficiency, but:
-first, not that much, maybe 30%
-second, we would need large gains to see the difference. For example, one stop in ISO would need to double the efficiency. As I already wrote, with the present high iso fashion, we are pretty close to counting individual photons. For example, at ISO6400, typical values collected by your individual camera pixels will be between 1 and 1000 photons.
I am only describing iso here, but the same can be said for other values like dynamic range or resolution. We are not that far from the limits of light itself.
-
Current sensors have some inefficiency, but:
-first, not that much, maybe 30%
-second, we would need large gains to see the difference. For example, one stop in ISO would need to double the efficiency. As I already wrote, with the present high iso fashion, we are pretty close to counting individual photons. For example, at ISO6400, typical values collected by your individual camera pixels will be between 1 and 1000 photons.
I am only describing iso here, but the same can be said for other values like dynamic range or resolution. We are not that far from the limits of light itself.
Exactly, the laws of Physics still apply to photography!
Most landscape photographers mostly care about 3 things besides resolution when choosing a camera/sensor: Low Iso Dynamic Range (15-16 stops would be nice, clean shadows), Long Exposure performance (low noise, some require much longer exposures than others) and Color Depth / Quality (Differentiation and Accuracy).
Right now the best sensor that combines all three things with resolution is the one in the IQ380. But if DR is much more important to you and also high iso performance then the 50 MP Sony sensor backs are the best choice. For using with tech camera lenses I still prefer the 60 MP dalsa sensor (IQ160 etc) but the 80 MP dalsa sensor is close and some might prefer it.
-
Most landscape photographers mostly care about 3 things besides resolution when choosing a camera/sensor: Low Iso Dynamic Range (15-16 stops would be nice, clean shadows), Long Exposure performance (low noise, some require much longer exposures than others) and Color Depth / Quality (Differentiation and Accuracy).
Low Iso Dynamic Range: a 14 bits ADC limits you to 14 bits dynamic range when everything else is perfectly noiseless. We have 16 bits ADCs (in a few MF cameras only), but the word is that the 2 last bits are just noise.
Also: a quick back of the enveloppe calculation shows that a perfectly noiseless reproduction chain with 100% quantum efficiency and no lens flare would be limited to a bit less than 16 stops for a 100iso sensor by photon shot noise itself, which is a direct consequence of the quantum nature of light (I may be off by ±1 stop in that calculation, but I expect that internet experts will correct me).
Long Exposure performance: ask the astronomers. They believe that thermal noise makes it necessary to cool the detector for long exposure. They probably have reasons.
Differentiation and Accuracy of colour: that is a complete can of worms, which I would rather leave shut close. I'll suggest to order ISO standard 17321 instead.
-
Next up:
Why 100MP for Landscapes ;D
-
Right now the best sensor that combines all three things with resolution is the one in the IQ380. But if DR is much more important to you and also high iso performance then the 50 MP Sony sensor backs are the best choice. For using with tech camera lenses I still prefer the 60 MP dalsa sensor (IQ160 etc) but the 80 MP dalsa sensor is close and some might prefer it.
How soon the future is with us:-
- Full Frame 645
- 15 stops dynamic range
- CMOS Sensor
- ISO 50 to ISO 12,800
- Electronic First Curtain Shutter
- HDMI Output (e.g. live view with a 7” battery-powered display untethered)
-
Next up:
Why 100MP for Landscapes ;D
For landscape photography with focus beyond 10m, at least not all MPs are wasted because of shallow depth of field.
...
- HDMI Output (e.g. live view with a 7” battery-powered display untethered)
did anybody find a battery display yet with HD quality ( 1920*1080)...? i am stuck @600x800px
-
Hi,
The new backs seem to be optimal for view cameras, probably offering excellent live view. Perhaps they have peaking, too?
A small question to my mind, how do they play with tilt and shift? That used to be a problem with the A7r generation of sensors but seems to be better with backside illuminated A7rII sensors. Has the new 100 MP back BSI?
No doubt in my mind, having a current generation of CMOS sensor in full frame 645 must be most welcome for anyone in search of the ultimate image quality. I always felt that a modern CMOS back was the best pairing for cameras like the Alpa FPS, or my special favourite that I never bought, the Hartblei HCam B1.
Best regards
Erik
How soon the future is with us:-
- Full Frame 645
- 15 stops dynamic range
- CMOS Sensor
- ISO 50 to ISO 12,800
- Electronic First Curtain Shutter
- HDMI Output (e.g. live view with a 7” battery-powered display untethered)
-
Next up:
Why 100MP for Landscapes ;D
This thread is done, we need a new thread ;D 8)
-
Very tempting to sign a check today, but I'll wait till March to see what Pentax comes up with!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Very tempting to sign a check today, but I'll wait till March to see what Pentax comes up with!
Cheers,
Bernard
I do not think Pentax has the glass for this sensor. Ironically the older lenses might work well but some of the newer ones might not. IIRC the 28-45mm is made to cover the 33x44mm sensor but not a larger sensor. Same thing with Hasselblad HCD lenses (the 24mm, the 28mm and the 35-90mm). They are no go for the monster 100MP Sony/Phase sensor.
-
I do not think Pentax has the glass for this sensor. Ironically the older lenses might work well but some of the newer ones might not. IIRC the 28-45mm is made to cover the 33x44mm sensor but not a larger sensor. Same thing with Hasselblad HCD lenses (the 24mm, the 28mm and the 35-90mm). They are no go for the monster 100MP Sony/Phase sensor.
It's not automatically a problem that a sensor is has so high resolving power that it shows the limits of the optical system. In fact I think that is how it should be. MFD has suffered the alias sickness for too long, where aliasing is considered "good image quality", when it's actually the opposite.
But anyway, the Hasselblad digital system was first designed with the expectation that the high end MFD format would be 49x37mm, but that's now a dead format. It's indeed a credibilitity issue with the pixel hunters, but there's still many sharp lenses in their lineup and quite a few do full-frame well as far as I understand.
I don't think Pentax ever thought about supporting 54x41mm digitally, but maybe they will rethink that now? I think it would be great for their product range to have both a 44x33 and a 54x41 body in their lineup, but it would surely be a few years before there's lenses to match the resolving power of the Phase One XF system...
-
It would be faster for Pentax to design a wide fixed lens mirrorless compact tham to redo their lens range.
Their is probably space for a new Makina.
Edmund
It's not automatically a problem that a sensor is has so high resolving power that it shows the limits of the optical system. In fact I think that is how it should be. MFD has suffered the alias sickness for too long, where aliasing is considered "good image quality", when it's actually the opposite.
But anyway, the Hasselblad digital system was first designed with the expectation that the high end MFD format would be 49x37mm, but that's now a dead format. It's indeed a credibilitity issue with the pixel hunters, but there's still many sharp lenses in their lineup and quite a few do full-frame well as far as I understand.
I don't think Pentax ever thought about supporting 54x41mm digitally, but maybe they will rethink that now? I think it would be great for their product range to have both a 44x33 and a 54x41 body in their lineup, but it would surely be a few years before there's lenses to match the resolving power of the Phase One XF system...
-
It would be faster for Pentax to design a wide fixed lens mirrorless compact tham to redo their lens range.
Their is probably space for a new Makina.
Edmund
A good idea, but then this 100MP back seems al at once awfully big...
A 6x4,5 Sony7 would do the trick. many tricks.
-
I do not think Pentax has the glass for this sensor. Ironically the older lenses might work well but some of the newer ones might not. IIRC the 28-45mm is made to cover the 33x44mm sensor but not a larger sensor. Same thing with Hasselblad HCD lenses (the 24mm, the 28mm and the 35-90mm). They are no go for the monster 100MP Sony/Phase sensor.
This wide angle lens and the DA25mm are the only Pentax lenses for the crop format - all others are full frame.
Given the surprisingly high number of 645Z Pentax are selling, they will IMO come with a full frame version in maybe two years time for say 15K.
-
I would think it to be much sooner than that. The IQ250 was announced at the end of January 2014 and the Pentax 645Z came in April 2014. I wouldn't be surprised to see Pentax announce a 100mp version around the CP+ show at the end of February.
Actually, it looks like Phase one announced on Jan 24th and according to the wikipedia entry, on Feb 5th Pentax announced they'd show a new medium format model with CMOS sensor and tilt screen at CP+ 2014. So perhaps Pentax will be making a similar announcement in the coming days or weeks about a full frame CMOS camera coming soon.
-
Well if pentax announce a FF model, all I can say is take my bank details.
-
It's not automatically a problem that a sensor is has so high resolving power that it shows the limits of the optical system. In fact I think that is how it should be. MFD has suffered the alias sickness for too long, where aliasing is considered "good image quality", when it's actually the opposite.
But anyway, the Hasselblad digital system was first designed with the expectation that the high end MFD format would be 49x37mm, but that's now a dead format. It's indeed a credibilitity issue with the pixel hunters, but there's still many sharp lenses in their lineup and quite a few do full-frame well as far as I understand.
I don't think Pentax ever thought about supporting 54x41mm digitally, but maybe they will rethink that now? I think it would be great for their product range to have both a 44x33 and a 54x41 body in their lineup, but it would surely be a few years before there's lenses to match the resolving power of the Phase One XF system...
I think the poster mentioniong the problem was referencing the second issue you bring up, not the resolving power. Most of the glass won’t handle the larger format sensor. But they could probably come up with a few newly designed lenses pretty quickly then add some over time.. I believe they’ve done pretty well with the camera so wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t come up with a new body and some new glass for the larger sensor. Just won’t be as soon as Phase or Hassie.
-
Realistically, Pentax has known about this sensor for at least one year.
The lack of EFC was IMHO the only remaining significant isssue with the 645Z, so the 645X (whatever it's called), should be perfect for people looking for an integrated solution.
It should be very clear at Pentax what they need to do lenswise and odds are that these designs are pretty advanced already. If I were them I would publish a clear roadmap together with the next body announcement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would think it to be much sooner than that. The IQ250 was announced at the end of January 2014 and the Pentax 645Z came in April 2014. I wouldn't be surprised to see Pentax announce a 100mp version around the CP+ show at the end of February.
Actually, it looks like Phase one announced on Jan 24th and according to the wikipedia entry, on Feb 5th Pentax announced they'd show a new medium format model with CMOS sensor and tilt screen at CP+ 2014. So perhaps Pentax will be making a similar announcement in the coming days or weeks about a full frame CMOS camera coming soon.
I dont expect a 100MP Pentax. Their specialty is cost-effective MF. They will probably get Sony to run them some cheap tweener chip of smaller size.
Edmund
-
Hi,
The cost of the Sony sensor is not publicly known. It is quite possible Pentax could use it and still have a camera below 10k$ or so.
Pentax has removed some lenses from the lens program that had limited image circle, and that would indicate they are preparing for a full frame 645 sensor.
But, difficult to foresee the future is…
Best regards
Erik
I dont expect a 100MP Pentax. Their specialty is cost-effective MF. They will probably get Sony to run them some cheap tweener chip of smaller size.
Edmund