Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Phil Indeblanc on November 28, 2013, 03:20:28 pm
-
I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...
I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).
I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...
My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.
So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago). Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.
As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.
The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.
So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.
The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),
There it is... Another what to do? :-)
-
Hi,
Your best short term option may be to buy a Sony A7r. It has 36MP, has no OLP, works with Canon lenses using Metabones adapters.
Right now, Canon does not have the technology to compete with Sony sensors (Sony makes the high res sensors for Nikon), that may change.
Personally, I think that OLP less sensors are snake oil. They offer false resolution, inventing non existing detail. I think that a good, correctly OLP-filtered sensor is preferable, but that is just me.
So I would suggest that you keep your Canon stuff, add a Sony A7r and wait a year or so until you have a clear picture where Canon is going.
Best regards
Erik
I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...
I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).
I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...
My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.
So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago). Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.
As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.
The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.
So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.
The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),
There it is... Another what to do? :-)
-
Hi Phil,
Wait for the Nikon D4x comes out before you change to Nikon. Rumours say it is going to be 56mpx.
Since I’ve got my Nikon D800’s I sold all my medium and large format equipment with out any regrets
Cheers
Simon
-
Hi,
Both Nikon and Sony have had 24 MP APS-C cameras for a while. Delivering those sensors in FF 135 format would yield 54 MP or so. The technology is here and proven. I have a Sony Alpha 77, an APS-C camera at 24 MP. Pixel for pixel it does not look good on screen, but it impresses in prints!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Phil,
Wait for the Nikon D4x comes out before you change to Nikon. Rumours say it is going to be 56mpx.
Since I’ve got my Nikon D800’s I sold all my medium and large format equipment with out any regrets
Cheers
Simon
-
Some options in order of ascending cost/pain:
1. Wait for Canon
2. Get an A7r + adapter to use with your Canon lenses (may encourage some lens upgrades?)
3. Get a P45+ to use with your current MF system
4. Sell off the Canon & buy a D800 + lenses (check availability of your lens needs for Nikon)
I moved to a D800 from P25 + Schneider Digitars, mostly for workflow/versatility and am generally happy. Could really use a 17mm PC lens though!
-
Phil,
I'm not sure which camera you are using with the back?
However, I think that upsizing your images with something like Genuine Fractals might let you continue using your setup ...
Edmund
-
Some really encouraging feedback here. I forgot about mentioning the A7R. It is adaptable to my Canon and Leica glass as Erik points out(Forgot about that)
I would be using it on a Sinar P2 with a number of lenses, but the sharpest I have is the Schn 180hr, I also use the Nikkor 120, 90, 300(Copal3 broke on it!)
Edmund, I have Blow up and Fractal, but for workflow, its already a mix of applications, I'm reluctant to add another. My need for more mpixels is for editing purposes. I find editing anything already processed or up uprezzed to be more problematic.
It maybe the A7R!
I won't need a bunch of lenses for studio, as I hope I can adapt my 180/120mm, But I may like it enough to take with me and use as my 2ndcam along the 5Dmrk2.
As Simon, you shoot some of what I shoot in studio, it is encouraging to hear this, though it would be nice to be able to rent the A7R/same sensor D800E just to be sure :-)
So Alan, #2 sounds pretty good. For 3 weeks it will be #1 :-)
Erik, If I can do #1 on Alan's list, I maybe left with better options long run, but it will cost more. As I am not a fan of getting the latest and greatest as soon as they hit the market (I got 5D2 after about a year). I don't know if I have the patients :-), But if I do wait, I bet Canon and Sony will have some nice options in the next year to come.
-
Phil,
There are pixels and pixels. Phase backs have very clean enlargeable pixels; dSLRs have blurrier pixels with less "thick" color, harder to enlarge and edit. So rather than shop for a new body and lenses, etc, my feeling is you might as well trade up to a better used back via our friends Steve or Doug who know their stuff and seem to be unbelievably honest; shout three times and they will magically appear. if you do a simple back swap, you will keep your lenses, your workflow, your software, and by doing a single prior rental test you will know if it works. dSLRs are not competitors for digital backs, they are different tools that are more flexible but provide a different quality of file -at a much lower price.
Edmund
-
Edmond, this is my general understanding...Simons sample, which I would mean much more if I had the raw of, has me thinking otherwise, and making me very open to the possibility...
I will post more later, but for now, there is a Turkey waiting for us! :-)
-
I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...
I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).
I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...
My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.
So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago). Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.
As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.
The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.
So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.
The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),
There it is... Another what to do? :-)
For studio work I would suggest you upgrade the back. There are plenty of great options at good prices now from Leaf and Phase. If you do not need the larger chip or the long exposure capability of the P45+ the P40+ is a great choice. I am not familiar with Leaf's product line but I believe they have several good options in the 30-40mp range.
Here is a photo of a sony NEX (E Mount) mounted to an Arca Swiss camera. An A7R would work but a back is a much better solution with a larger sensor and a wider range of usable focal lengths.
-
There are pixels and pixels. Phase backs have very clean enlargeable pixels; dSLRs have blurrier pixels with less "thick" color, harder to enlarge and edit. So rather than shop for a new body and lenses, etc, my feeling is you might as well trade up to a better used back via our friends Steve or Doug who know their stuff and seem to be unbelievably honest; shout three times and they will magically appear. if you do a simple back swap, you will keep your lenses, your workflow, your software, and by doing a single prior rental test you will know if it works. dSLRs are not competitors for digital backs, they are different tools that are more flexible but provide a different quality of file -at a much lower price.
No need to shout three times. Once will do :).
I think what you should do is go rent (or beg/borrow/steal) a D800 and a nice lens or two and do a test shoot. Don't worry so much about side-by-side scientific testing. Rather do the shoot as if the D800 was your new camera and see what you like and don't like.
There is a LOT more to finding a camera that you'll love working with than if it has enough resolution for your desired output. If I gave you a camera with 1000 megapixels but you don't love the color, then those 1000 megapixels won't be worth a dime. If I give you a camera that you love the output of but that you can't use in such a way to accomplish your vision (e.g. an 8x10 for someone shooting sports) then the output won't matter.
As for Canon making a medium format camera... same rumor, different year. I maintain there is little chance that Canon or Nikon will make any medium format systems in the next several years (I'm smarter than to try to predict anything in technology more than several years out). It's too small a market for companies whose business models rely almost entirely on volume.
-
Love that m Arca Swiss. No, I don't need long exposure. 39mpixels would be nice.
Edmund, I know what you mean when you say pixel vs pixel, as when you edit a MF file, you can see more information moving in it, and when you make edits like blur/smudge tool, you see it takes more to change an area, while a quick swipe on a 35 sensor file is fragile, colors and pixels get tweaked/shifted easier.
But I don't know if this means better pictures delivered to client. Maybe more careful editing? :-)
Well guys, I might have to try and uprez my files before postprocessing, for now. Never thought of it for regular practice, so I will give it a shot Edmund. If I did buy a back, I hope you know Doug , that it would be no quandary of it being you. But this year has been my second year taking a bit of a hit. I need to increase work :-)
I will likely rent the Nikon (with access. to mount to my lenses) just to see the differences, gains/short comings.
I love the results of my processing of C1v7, wish I had a C1 without all the fluff, just process (no catalog, no folders in my file structure, different thread:-),
I find the need to always to go into PS on all files(in client work), and often to use LR on them before hand, Thats 3 programs minimum. 2 redundant. So using Fractal will add one more, but it maybe something I can automate to some degree.
Its a matter of wants vs need over expendables :-) One easier to expend on than the other
-
Uprez by 40% caused my file to go beyond 9GB with layers (open in PS) !!!
This is the case for 30-40% of my production. That would fill things up quick. but I can be selective on a need be basis.
I already have close to 10TB and i'm starting to run low....I know I will be getting 4 or 8 (3-4TB in RAID+1) drives very soon, but that would be another issue with much larger files eating space very quickly.
So with Pixel not = to Pixel, (I would think even the 22MB files off the MF vs the D800 hold "better" /At some point resolution does get more information of what is in site?), I may as well stay with what isn't broken, just brief/discuss with clients more clearly as to the way they want the images, this would help in itself!
-
So with Pixel not = to Pixel, (I would think even the 22MB files off the MF vs the D800 hold "better" /At some point resolution does get more information of what is in site?), I may as well stay with what isn't broken, just brief/discuss with clients more clearly as to the way they want the images, this would help in itself!
My view is that the D800 files can take incredible amount of manipulations while retaining a high level of integrity, much more so than my Mamya ZD files ever could. It was already the case for the D3x files by the way.
With proper lenses, technique and sharpening, the files also have a nice crispiness to them without the unpleasantly brittle look I too often see in the AA filterless files of some backs. But that really is a matter of taste.
Anyway, you should indeed just give it a try and see for yourself. C1 Pro is probably the best option to convert D800 raw files at base ISO, I find DxO 9 to work great as a generic converter since it auto tunes the level of noise reduction required as a function of the ISO used.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard,
I should probably be more specific: When using MF/studio, I stay on 50 ISO ALWAYS, and my files need only the most basic of processing, in C1, likely a 1/2 or couple max stops of exposure usually reduced as I expose for darks as recovery is really good (this in itself is a debate between sensors,hehe), I also raise the structure and detail a bit, maybe adjust some highlight and Darkness ....07 Radius/240 Sharpen, and so on. On rare occasion use the gradient overlay.
Yesw, it looks like I have to try..So far I am out of luck on D800E rentals. they offer the nonE, ..I will check a couple more "local" spots before online
-
Phil
Did you try lensrentsls.com? I thought at one time they had both models. 800 and 800e.
Paul Caldwell
-
No Paul, I wanted to try my local stores first, so far 2 out of 4 is a no go.
I will check that out mid next week if other stores don't have it.
I wish a local "photo-colleague had it to test. Anyone interested in testing this with HR lenses on rails? PM me.
A $3K true upgrade for me works, anymore is not that worth the improvement for my needs. Well... If Cartier, Tiffany and the like were my clients, sure. But I don't know how to market to them :-)
-
Doug,
Do us all a favor, offer this guy the upgrade deal he is not so subtly angling for, and get him out of here already! :)
Edmund
No Paul, I wanted to try my local stores first, so far 2 out of 4 is a no go.
I will check that out mid next week if other stores don't have it.
I wish a local "photo-colleague had it to test. Anyone interested in testing this with HR lenses on rails? PM me.
A $3K true upgrade for me works, anymore is not that worth the improvement for my needs. Well... If Cartier, Tiffany and the like were my clients, sure. But I don't know how to market to them :-)
-
heheehe ;)
A $3K true upgrade for me works
I doubt any deals will be that sweet. but thanks :-)
-
Hi,
I cannot talk about Nikon D800E, but I have a P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 (same sensor as Nikon D800). What I see is:
- The P45+ has a significant advantage in sharpness
- The Sony Alpha has a significant advantage in the shadows
- The P45+ has yellowish greens
- There is a difference in AWB between the Sony and the P45+, I would recommend gray card shooting on the P45+
- Histograms are almost reliable on the Sony, on P45+ less so
For shadows/highlight I think the Sony is to go.
Here are a couple of comparable samples with raw images included (small dark crop):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/ShadowDetail/
I normally process my images in Lightroom. I have also processed the P45+ image in Capture 1. C1 does as default extreme amount of noise reduction in the shadow area, with a smeary look, but it can be tuned.
Raw histograms, check below. I would guess a scene illumination range of about 9EV.
The P45+ arrived in 2007, it has a Kodak sensor. Later Phase One switched to Dalsa sensors, and there has been a significant development in DR and noise. I enclose some DxO data. Actually, the DxO data is pretty similar to my findings. Nikon D800 would measure a bit better.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Bernard,
I should probably be more specific: When using MF/studio, I stay on 50 ISO ALWAYS, and my files need only the most basic of processing, in C1, likely a 1/2 or couple max stops of exposure usually reduced as I expose for darks as recovery is really good (this in itself is a debate between sensors,hehe), I also raise the structure and detail a bit, maybe adjust some highlight and Darkness ....07 Radius/240 Sharpen, and so on. On rare occasion use the gradient overlay.
Yesw, it looks like I have to try..So far I am out of luck on D800E rentals. they offer the nonE, ..I will check a couple more "local" spots before online
-
Uprez by 40% caused my file to go beyond 9GB with layers (open in PS) !!!
This is the case for 30-40% of my production. That would fill things up quick. but I can be selective on a need be basis.
I already have close to 10TB and i'm starting to run low....I know I will be getting 4 or 8 (3-4TB in RAID+1) drives very soon, but that would be another issue with much larger files eating space very quickly.
So with Pixel not = to Pixel, (I would think even the 22MB files off the MF vs the D800 hold "better" /At some point resolution does get more information of what is in site?), I may as well stay with what isn't broken, just brief/discuss with clients more clearly as to the way they want the images, this would help in itself!
Phil, I wouldn't suggest uprezzing until you've finished and flattened the file. I regularly scale up my images for printing and find that Photoshop (CS6) does a great job. Jim
-
I have heard that Canon might be working ... even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).
I have also heard such rumors of a supersized Canon system --- about every few months for the last decade or so! But so far none of them has been confirmed, and none has been backed by any persuasive evidence or arguments (hint: the arguments usually offered are no more valid now than back in the film era, and it never happened then.) Of course, a decade ago most of us saw no reason to expect that what was then "Apple Computer Inc." would transform itself into a mobile phone maker that sells a few laptops on the side and even fewer desktops, so I am not claiming that it absolutely, definitely will _not_ happen, just that so far the numerous rumors of Canon or Nikon going MF have been evidence of nothing but misguided wishful thinking, uncontaminated by consideration of economic realities.
-
I'm sure there are some prototype Canon and probably Nikon systems floating around their labs - after all Canon has semiconductor fabs available to them so why not run up an insurance project. Just clip existing shift lenses to them, these have huge image circles ...
Edmund
I have also heard such rumors of a supersized Canon system --- about every few months for the last decade or so! But so far none of them has been confirmed, and none has been backed by any persuasive evidence or arguments (hint: the arguments usually offered are no more valid now than back in the film era, and it never happened then.) Of course, a decade ago most of us saw no reason to expect that what was then "Apple Computer Inc." would transform itself into a mobile phone maker that sells a few laptops on the side and even fewer desktops, so I am not claiming that it absolutely, definitely will _not_ happen, just that so far the numerous rumors of Canon or Nikon going MF have been evidence of nothing but misguided wishful thinking, uncontaminated by consideration of economic realities.
-
Personally, I think that OLP less sensors are snake oil. They offer false resolution, inventing non existing detail. I think that a good, correctly OLP-filtered sensor is preferable, but that is just me.
Given the a7r is selling faster than the a7 you may correct, it's just you ;) False detail on one hand, lost detail on the other... six of one, half-dozen of the other. The real question is, how do the prints look?
-
Hi,
Canon has the 7D at 18 MP, that sensor upscaled to 24x36 would yield 46 MP. Canon could probably do it, I don't know why they don't.
At 46 MP it may be possible to drop the AA-filter.
Going to a larger sensor than 24x36 doesn't make a lot of sense for a company like Canon, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
I usually try and help others in such posts, but I need to get my head out of the process to make some sense...
I post this here as the lines are ever more blurred between the two formats(MF/DSLR) with newer larger mpixel sensors in DSLR's, and most interestingly, I have heard that Canon might be working more mpixels or even on a larger than FF sensor(Some time back on CanonRumors).
I ask this question as I find myself in the switching game...
My first camera was a Canon EOS Elan Film about 20 years ago. Sometime back 7-8 years ago when I was hired to shoot for a company they supplied me with Nikon gear. The color was bad, the focus was worse. It may have been a D200 or D70? I cant remember. I used the camera as my own, and they let me do with it as I please. Around the time, I had a Oly C2500L which was like a toy, but still amazing for the time to see such a camera. This was marketed to the medical field as it can focus on objects just about touching the lens bezel.
So then at some point I got a Canon 10D, and was a happy camper for most of it in overall use. At this time there was lots of tech activity and improvements happening fast. A few models later, including the Kodak SLR/c, I got the 1Ds tank. Amazing camera to this day(purchase price $7500, Sold $700 a month ago). Now besides the MF Phase back, I have the Canon 5DmarkII.
As I shoot both street/people/event, etc all fine with the 5Dmk2, I also shoot product/Studio with MF.
The Question I have is that I am in need of more resolution from 22. Not a lot more, but about 20+% would help in my studio work from the P25 I use.
I can't use the Canon as it too is 21mp and the A-filter is not acceptable.
So I find myself waiting for Canon to come up with something that I can use as my Studio camera and maybe as daily use camera(hoping Canon gets it right and offers a no A-filter option., and put the 5D2 as 2nd-Cam. I can't justify even a $7500 P45+ as I don't do a lot of studio work (for now). Plus now that I sold my 1Ds, I now need a 2nd-Cam to my 5Dmk2. So its either $3K for a Mark3(much better focusing), AND the Nikon for studio for $3k, or $7500 for the studio MF, and still needing a 2nd-Cam.
The D800e so far looks like it delivers. Do I wait for a Canon to answer with more mpixels? Or do I switch to Nikon just for Studio shooting to replacing Sinar/SchneiderHR( getting the DSLR adapter for the Sinar),
There it is... Another what to do? :-)
-
Looks like I'm buying the A7R regardless of my setup. I don't think it will change my setup, but who knows!?
Phil, I wouldn't suggest uprezzing until you've finished and flattened the file. I regularly scale up my images for printing and find that Photoshop (CS6) does a great job. Jim
Thanks Jim, makes sense!
I approached it thinking if an unedited file gets the uprez it will be a "better" final. Although it maybe, but likely not worth the difference. I just have to go over the final with a fine tooth comb.
-
Hi,
Canon has the 7D at 18 MP, that sensor upscaled to 24x36 would yield 46 MP. Canon could probably do it, I don't know why they don't.
At 46 MP it may be possible to drop the AA-filter.
Going to a larger sensor than 24x36 doesn't make a lot of sense for a company like Canon, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
Your assumption seems to be that if you can manufacture a sensel of dimensions x in a small sensor, then you can to the same for a larger sensor. I doubt that this is strictly true.
1) The manufacture process may be entirely different for larger sensors (stitching?), thus prohibiting simple re-use of tech from smaller sensor production lines
2) Even if possible, the defect rate might make this prohibitively expensive
3) If the sensor is technically/economically possible, the supporting electronics to transport and capture the information out of the sensor might not be (at sensible frame-rates, sensible noise levels, sensible battery-life vs camera size etc)
I was disappointed with the FF sensor of the 5Dmk3, and I hope that Canon will push the state-of-the-art in the next generation.
-h
-
Hi,
Yes, larger sensors are stitched. On the other hand Canon makes 24x36 size sensors already.
On the other hand, I just read a "sony rumor" that they have developed 54 MP full frame chip. It is supposed to be very expensive in manufacture. This may indicate that upscaling an APS-C is much more expensive than I would believe. (The 24 MP APS-C chip upscaled to 24x36 would be 54MP).
Best regards
Erik
Your assumption seems to be that if you can manufacture a sensel of dimensions x in a small sensor, then you can to the same for a larger sensor. I doubt that this is strictly true.
1) The manufacture process may be entirely different for larger sensors (stitching?), thus prohibiting simple re-use of tech from smaller sensor production lines
2) Even if possible, the defect rate might make this prohibitively expensive
3) If the sensor is technically/economically possible, the supporting electronics to transport and capture the information out of the sensor might not be (at sensible frame-rates, sensible noise levels, sensible battery-life vs camera size etc)
I was disappointed with the FF sensor of the 5Dmk3, and I hope that Canon will push the state-of-the-art in the next generation.
-h
-
Yes, larger sensors are stitched. On the other hand Canon makes 24x36 size sensors already.
Erik, I think you are missing the point: that stitching requires very precise alignment after moving to a different part of the wafer, so that the imprecisions in that could set a stricter lower limit on feature sizes in stitched sensors than "single shot" ones. Nikon and Sony also have. Distinctly larger pixel size in any of their stitched sensors than in some of their unstitched ones: their 24MP in 24x16mm would scale to 54MP.
But I can see numerous other possible reasons why Canon might have decided not to pursue higher resolution in 36X24mm format, relating to economic considerations more than technical limitations.
It could be that Canon sees a market for a higher resolution 36x24mm sensor needing a clear improvement in sharpness and detail of very large prints given by the combination of Canon sensor with Canon lenses, not just oversampling to eliminate the OLPF) and not enough of its lenses would do well enough under the pixel peeping scrutiny that many potential customers would apply. "Works great with Zeiss lenses" is not the slogan that Canon marketing wants.
It could also be that Canon expects that customers for such a camera to make close comparisons of IQ aspects like dynamic range at low ISO, where current Canon technology would leave it losing badly to the Nikon (or Sony) alternatives. If so, it could make sense for Canon to instead keep to its strengths, which in the professional area are more in the direction of fast action, low light, high ISO speed performance.
In short, just because a company could make a product, and some people would buy it, does not mean that it makes business sense to invest in developing such a product.
See also: "why Canon and Nikon could have gone into medium format cameras at any time over the last half century (even far smaller Pentax did!) but they never have."
-
Canon can do an unstitched 35mm sensor, at one point they built a stepper which could do this. I don't know whether there are any physical limitations that limit die size on a purpose-built stepper, as I would naively assume that there is a movable stage and the movements of this stage determine the max die size, where accurate stage positioning over the whole excursion would of course be a requirement. In any case as Canon seem to be an optics company first and foremost, it is not crazy to think that they could create an end-to-end process for larger sensors if they really wanted/needed to, and they might find some other uses for largeish single-step dies.
Edmund
-
The mention of larger sensors and stitching caught my attention. I used to think the larger Dalsa's were stitched due to the obvious lines that you can see when you look at the sensor, however from talking to several different sources, I have been told this is not stitching. Instead the lines are readout's for the chip so that the the data can be processed faster. These lines are not from individual sensors butting up together. The 60 and 80MP chips are still made from one large piece of wafer.
No Canon, Nikon or Sony chip I have viewed shows these type of lines, only the Dalsa chips used by Phase One, Leaf etc.
The fact that the digital read out's (lines) can cause center folding seems to lead many to the idea that the center folding lines represent the edges of the sensors. However the lines are caused by the possible differences in calibration of the various read outs causing one sector of the chip to show a bit darker. This will show up as a hard line on an image, and will be more pronounced with heavy contrast or if the image is converted to B&W.
Phase One calibrates each back to remove centerfolding, however some backs can still show it especially if tech camera lenses are in use and shifted. (Schneider's are much worse at this than Rodenstocks). The problem can still show up with shots taken with Mamiya/Phase One lenses and if it does, then most times the back needs to be re-calibrated.
As far as I know Phase One's 80MP is the largest sensor in use today (for traditional photographic work) however there may be larger sensors in use by other applications that may actually be combinations of smaller physical sensors.
The older Kodak chips, that Phase One used in the P45+, other backs in that line, did not have the readout lines and thus many people who used those backs and upgraded to Dalsa saw the lines and assumed that the Dalsa chips were stitched (me included).
Paul Caldwell
-
Canon can do an unstitched 35mm sensor, at one point they built a stepper which could do this.
Ronald, we seem to discuss this several times a year! Yes, Canon used to make one stepper with a maximum field size of about 50x50mm, introduced over ten years ago, and now discontinued. But it had a rather large minimum feature size, was advertised for tasks like the first rough stages of fabrication, and when Canon launched its 36x24mm sensors, after introducing that stepper, Canon said in several white papers that it needed to use stitching to make those 36x24mm sensors, and that the "APS-H" sensors of several 1D models were roughly at the size limit for fabrication without stitching.
That stepper might well be the one used to make the largest Kodak CCDs, of about that 50x50mm size, but those have huge 24micron pixels, good for 1.5MP in 36x24mm format.
By the way, Canon still has one stepper than can make chips far larger than 36x24mm without stitching, but its minimum feature size is far larger than the discontinued one, 1.5microns, so useless for anything under about 20 micron CMOS pixels: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications
-
BJL,
Thanks for jogging my recollection; the question really is not whether they have a stepper for bigger chips, it is whether they can make one for current process technology if they wish to ..
When the 1Ds was launched, there was little demand for for 24x36 + pads chips. But now "full-frame" has become a mainstream (digital) photography consumer product, and millions of these chips need to be made each year, probably justifying dedicated fabs and production equipment.
Stated in these terms the question becomes exactly how much a modified stepper -or some other adaptation to the current production process that would allow precisely manufactured larger chips- would cost to be put in production and what practical use it would have aside from camera chips. As you know, Canon found a zillion of uses for its chip technology, including one very strange but profitable application, turning a chip on its side which makes it into a ... printer head, aka bubblejet.
Of course, one might ask the question differently, wondering by how much Canon is handicapped in the 35mm full frame market by not being able to scale their processes smoothly and reuse the cells of other cameras, due to the absence (if so?) of a stepper.
BTW, I would be really interested in circuit-level documentation of some current designs if you have an accessible reference, or a PDF :)
Edmund
Ronald, we seem to discuss this several times a year! Yes, Canon used to make one stepper with a maximum field size of about 50x50mm, introduced over ten years ago, and now discontinued. But it had a rather large minimum feature size, was advertised for tasks like the first rough stages of fabrication, and when Canon launched its 36x24mm sensors, after introducing that stepper, Canon said in several white papers that it needed to use stitching to make those 36x24mm sensors, and that the "APS-H" sensors of several 1D models were roughly at the size limit for fabrication without stitching.
That stepper might well be the one used to make the largest Kodak CCDs, of about that 50x50mm size, but those have huge 24micron pixels, good for 1.5MP in 36x24mm format.
By the way, Canon still has one stepper than can make chips far larger than 36x24mm without stitching, but its minimum feature size is far larger than the discontinued one, 1.5microns, so useless for anything under about 20 micron CMOS pixels: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/semiconductor/products/semiconductor_equipment/steppers/fpa_5510iv_stepper#Specifications
-
I have also heard such rumors of a supersized Canon system --- about every few months for the last decade or so! But so far none of them has been confirmed, and none has been backed by any persuasive evidence or arguments (hint: the arguments usually offered are no more valid now than back in the film era, and it never happened then.)
The whole marketing of Canon has been based for 20 years on leveraging the professional usage of their equipment (big white lenses at sports event) to attract casual shooters generating the bulk of their profit... against a single "enemy"... Nikon.
They are facing a problem now because Nikon has been threatening this approach since the day they released the D3 on 23-Aug-2007. It started with high ISO and has been low ISO image quality since the D3x was released on 1-Dec-2008. My understanding is that Nikon priced the D3x the way they did only to make a statement as a high end offering, they could have sold it cheaper but they wanted to release a body whose pricing would say "better than the 1Ds3".
We are at a turning point where many pros/high end amateurs are starting to really wonder whether Canon has the technology to compete in the high end segment of DSLRs. Whether they can still be seen as leading provider of camera delivery the highest possible image quality. Don't get me wrong, I know the 5DIII is an excellent camera and that Canon still produces some of the best lenses available.
If Nikon does release, as seems possible if not likely, a true 16 bits 54MP D4x early 2014, that will only further increase the gap and generate more boat shifting in the high end segment.
In that context, and assuming that Canon is still struggling to enhance DR of their sensors at the current pixel sizes, going to wider sensors may be they only technological option to remain credible in the high end segment. This is the exact same route that Phaseone selected by maintaining the same pixel size with roughly constant image quality per pixel, but increasing the sensor size to reach higher resolutions up to the P65+/IQ180/IQ280.
So it does in fact seem slightly more likely to me than it used to and the sole purpose would be to protect their image as a high end photography equipment supplier. IE, to win against Nikon. Most reasonable decision makers would IMHO have given up years ago on using inferior in-house sensors in favor of Sony parts, but they have not. That says a lot about the level of pride of some key people within Canon, and this pride may have led them towards the unlikely MF path.
Future will tell. As a photographer, I would love this to happen!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I think most of here have access to both cameras from brand C and brand N, and we know both make stars and dogs.
Both companies have issues more serious, in the sense that the photo market is going through a massive change.
Both companies could buy Phase One or Hassy in 5 minutes.
'nuff said.
Edmund
The whole marketing of Canon has been based for 20 years on leveraging the professional usage of their equipment (big white lenses at sports event) to attract casual shooters generating the bulk of their profit... against a single "enemy"... Nikon.
They are facing a problem now because Nikon has been threatening this approach since the day they released the D3 on 23-Aug-2007. It started with high ISO and has been low ISO image quality since the D3x was released on 1-Dec-2008. My understanding is that Nikon priced the D3x the way they did only to make a statement as a high end offering, they could have sold it cheaper but they wanted to release a body whose pricing would say "better than the 1Ds3".
We are at a turning point where many pros/high end amateurs are starting to really wonder whether Canon has the technology to compete in the high end segment of DSLRs. Whether they can still be seen as leading provider of camera delivery the highest possible image quality. Don't get me wrong, I know the 5DIII is an excellent camera and that Canon still produces some of the best lenses available.
If Nikon does release, as seems possible if not likely, a true 16 bits 54MP D4x early 2014, that will only further increase the gap and generate more boat shifting in the high end segment.
In that context, and assuming that Canon is still struggling to enhance DR of their sensors at the current pixel sizes, going to wider sensors may be they only technological option to remain credible in the high end segment. This is the exact same route that Phaseone selected by maintaining the same pixel size with roughly constant image quality per pixel, but increasing the sensor size to reach higher resolutions up to the P65+/IQ180/IQ280.
So it does in fact seem slightly more likely to me than it used to and the sole purpose would be to protect their image as a high end photography equipment supplier. IE, to win against Nikon. Most reasonable decision makers would IMHO have given up years ago on using inferior in-house sensors in favor of Sony parts, but they have not. That says a lot about the level of pride of some key people within Canon, and this pride may have led them towards the unlikely MF path.
Future will tell. As a photographer, I would love this to happen!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, If one can see this, I can see the leading MFdb's being forced to make the next step into larger sensors, so they can keep the gap wide as possible. I don't see why not.
I remember there was a photographer who had a custom made sensor fabricated to his spec that was a very larger sensor chip. I don't remember the size, yet I know the resolution was low (years back 12mp?), but the files he explained were very film like for him.
-
In that context, and assuming that Canon is still struggling to enhance DR of their sensors at the current pixel sizes, going to wider sensors may be they only technological option to remain credible in the high end segment. This is the exact same route that Phaseone selected by maintaining the same pixel size with roughly constant image quality per pixel, but increasing the sensor size to reach higher resolutions up to the P65+/IQ180/IQ280.
But what Phase One did - going from sub-fullframe (sub-645) sensors to [virtually] fullframe - is only like what Canon did in going from the APS-H 1D to the full-frame 1Ds. No biggy.
If Canon were to leap out of 35mm and market something which could be termed medium format, the analogy would be different: it would be like Phase One leaping out of 645 and making a full 6x9 format back. Both prospects are extremely unlikely in the near term.
Ray
-
Of course, wait 20 years and anybody will be able to buy electronics and turn his view camera into a digital
Edmund
But what Phase One did - going from sub-fullframe (sub-645) sensors to [virtually] fullframe - is only like what Canon did in going from the APS-H 1D to the full-frame 1Ds. No biggy.
If Canon were to leap out of 35mm and market something which could be termed medium format, the analogy would be different: it would be like Phase One leaping out of 645 and making a full 6x9 format back. Both prospects are extremely unlikely in the near term.
Ray
-
Both companies have issues more serious, in the sense that the photo market is going through a massive change.
I believe both companies are in desperate need of customer thinking they are buying a mid range camera from the company making the best cameras available on the market... instead of a smart phone.
So owning the crown of image quality is IMHO extremely important for continued success in the mass market.
There is no doubt that Canon must be looking very actively for a way to get back in the race. The release of the a7R must only be accelerating their feeling of utter urgency... The 2 Canon shooters I am closest with have already bought an a7R with the matching lenses on the first day of availability... They are both just amazed by the difference a modern sensor makes and really glad they can use their excellent Canon glass.
I am not sure that buying MF brands would have much value for Canon in terms of image, it would be another admission of their inability to compete on technology. That wouldn't fix the ego thing.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A bunch of little comments to posts above:
- I agree with Ronald that, if Canon or Nikon, or Sony did feel a need to move into MF, a prestigious but very small market, the most practical method would be to purchase or partner with an existing MF maker like Mamiya/Phase One. For one thing, this would make use of existing MF lens designs, and the installed base of such lenses, along with brand loyalties of existing MF users. These discussions tend to focus too much on sensors and not enough on lenses, and the barrier of needing to develop a whole new range of lenses for a larger format needs to be justified by a significant profit potential --- especially when one cannot sell them for Leica-sized markups. Saying "use our tilt-shift lenses" will not be enough!
- I disagree with Bernard's vision of Canon as being in some kind of desperate situation: AFAIK, Canon still lead DSLR sales overall and in the professional sectors like sports/PJ, where "speed" is far more important that getting even more than 12 steps of DR or even more than 22MP or detail. The skew in this forum towards people interested extremes of high resolution, high dynamic range, and mostly low ISO photography are not representative of where most of the camera buying money is!
- Canon is not at a disadvantage relative to any other maker of sensors 36x24mm and larger: they all must use on-wafer stitching (except for low res. sensors for X-rays and such). AMSL (http://www.asml.com/asml/show.do?ctx=6874&rid=7241), which now dominates the stepper industry, pulling away from Nikon and Canon, puts a lot of emphasis on supporting stitching including 2D stitching (http://www.asml.com/asml/show.do?ctx=6874&rid=7241) for making large chips, and has never gone beyond 33x26mm field size in any of its steppers. This along with Canon and Nikon's lack of any recent efforts towards wider field steppers other than very low res. ones, indicates that the market for such large chips is small enough that stitching is more cost effective than designing and making a stepper of larger maximum field size.
-
- I disagree with Bernard's vision of Canon as being in some kind of desperate situation: AFAIK, Canon still lead DSLR sales overall and in the professional sectors like sports/PJ, where "speed" is far more important that getting even more than 12 steps of DR or even more than 22MP or detail. The skew in this forum towards people interested extremes of high resolution, high dynamic range, and mostly low ISO photography are not representative of where most of the camera buying money is!
Huge drop in profit and a fall in camera sales at Nikon. Maybe the market leader Canon should buy the small player Nikon and assimilate the technology?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107)
-
- I disagree with Bernard's vision of Canon as being in some kind of desperate situation: AFAIK, Canon still lead DSLR sales overall and in the professional sectors like sports/PJ, where "speed" is far more important that getting even more than 12 steps of DR or even more than 22MP or detail. The skew in this forum towards people interested extremes of high resolution, high dynamic range, and mostly low ISO photography are not representative of where most of the camera buying money is!
I do believe that many photographers tends to upgrade fairly seldomly, and to switch brands even more seldomly. Such behaviour may serve to delay and conceal underlying perceptions that "the grass is greener...".
If Canon is perceived as lagging behind in sensor tech for a number of years, many big spenders will probably jump ship eventually. Ifthey do, there is a chance that soccer-mums will too, once the big cameras at big events don't have big white lenses anymoore.
This also means that Canon can afford to rest on its laurels every few generations.
-h
-
Right now, Canon does not have the technology to compete with Sony sensors (Sony makes the high res sensors for Nikon), that may change.
[/quote]
I don't think we know what technology Canon has. Just because it did not appear in their last releases does not mean they don't have it. Quite likely they are squeezing every last penny out of the invested in technology. I don't think it hurt them much releasing the cameras they did last round.
I quite expect a Foveon type release from one of the big players alongside their existing tech.
Canon have not thrown in the towel and could easily have a sensor ready to rock the world. Not many years ago Nikon had nothing to offer, and so it goes one way then the other.
-
If Canon is perceived as lagging behind in sensor tech for a number of years, many big spenders will probably jump ship eventually. Ifthey do, there is a chance that soccer-mums will too, once the big cameras at big events don't have big white lenses anymoore.
This begs the question of whether there is any such perception of Canon lagging in the SLR market as a whole or the main pro market of sports/PJ, as opposed to such a perception in the "special interest group" of forums like this. Is there any sign that those users of "big white lenses" care about 36MP vs 22MP or 13 vs 12 stops of DR more than they care about excellent low light performance, fast and accurate AF, etc.?
Hint: resolution and DR are advantages that MF had over 35mm format in the film era, and look how that turned out.
And even if there is such a perception, as you say Canon has time to develop and adopt a new technology like column-parallel ADC; after all, multiple sensor makers have done so, some with far less resources than Canon it is not as if Sony/Nikon have "CPADC" locked down with patents or other exclusives. Fixing that problems seems wiser than sulking away into a far smaller market niche in pursuit of the halo effect for sales of completely different camera using a completely different lens system. That is, rather than invest in a MF system (possibly prestigious but probably money-losing, like the Bugatti Veyron), a better "desperation move" for Canon might be to buy one of those companies with good CPADC sensor technology!
-
Most system cameras sold are crop frame with zooms. I am not at all sure that the people who use them see the same effects as we do. In particular much depends on the quality of the Jpeg engine and the native tone curves.
Edmund
This begs the question of whether there is any such perception of Canon lagging in the SLR market as a whole or the main pro market of sports/PJ, as opposed to such a perception in the "special interest group" of forums like this. Is there any sign that those users of "big white lenses" care about 36MP vs 22MP or 13 vs 12 stops of DR more than they care about excellent low light performance, fast and accurate AF, etc.?
Hint: resolution and DR are advantages that MF had over 35mm format in the film era, and look how that turned out.
And even if there is such a perception, as you say Canon has time to develop and adopt a new technology like column-parallel ADC; after all, multiple sensor makers have done so, some with far less resources than Canon it is not as if Sony/Nikon have "CPADC" locked down with patents or other exclusives. Fixing that problems seems wiser than sulking away into a far smaller market niche in pursuit of the halo effect for sales of completely different camera using a completely different lens system. That is, rather than invest in a MF system (possibly prestigious but probably money-losing, like the Bugatti Veyron), a better "desperation move" for Canon might be to buy one of those companies with good CPADC sensor technology!
-
Most system cameras sold are crop frame with zooms. I am not at all sure that the people who use them see the same effects as we do. In particular much depends on the quality of the Jpeg engine and the native tone curves.
Oh yes, I am sure that the vast majority of system camera buyers are not much bothered by the reportedly sad, sorry state of Canon's sensor design, but the claim is that (1) pros with big white lenses are bothered, and (2) the masses often follow the pros in brand choices. So my question is, what fraction of those pros with big white lenses "see the same effects as we do" and are thus likely to move away from Canon to Nikon?
-
While there has been all sorts of rumors about Canon and Nikon developing medium format cameras (Last time this happened, it turned out to be the D3X), one interesting bit about the rumors this time around is that instead of talking about developing an all new platform, they talk about Canon looking to work closer/ acquiring a European MF manufacturer. This looks a lot more probable to me.
If we look at the playing field, Phase, by all accounts is financially very healthy and independent and thus, doesn't really need a partner. Hassy is definitely in bed with Sony at this point and I have a feeling we'll see MF sized sensors from Sony soon. Sinar just because Leica territory. That leaves us with Rollei.
A Rollei-Canon synergy actually makes complete sense. Rollei has a great camera body and some excellent lenses. But they could use a consistent and up to date supply of digital backs, an expanded sales network and some cash influx. Canon can provide all this. Also keep in mind that the Rollei brand name has some weight here in Asia.
-
I have a cheaply bought rusty 1Ds3 and what I see is a generally better-behaved camera image-wise than my D4 and D3x. In the spectro arena I saw the same thing with Xrite's DTP-70 versus the Gretag iSIs/ProfileMakerPro suite: The Swiss hardware had much better specs (real, not paper), but when the tires met the road the filter spectro and its software somehow won every time.
Edmund
Oh yes, I am sure that the vast majority of system camera buyers are not much bothered by the reportedly sad, sorry state of Canon's sensor design, but the claim is that (1) pros with big white lenses are bothered, and (2) the masses often follow the pros in brand choices. So my question is, what fraction of those pros with big white lenses "see the same effects as we do" and are thus likely to move away from Canon to Nikon?
-
I have a cheaply bought rusty 1Ds3 and what I see is a generally better-behaved camera image-wise than my D4 and D3x.
What do you mean exactly by "better-behaved"?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What do you mean exactly by "better-behaved"?
Cheers,
Bernard
The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible. The Canon is usable from outdoors in strong light to indoors with a fast lens, I posted some pictures you saw. My D4 preferred low light levels (in fact it had to be sent back to service because it went soft in direct light) and my D3x was happy only in good light. I think Nikon essentially tried to make two good specialised cameras instead of one general purpose camera but these products were both too specialised; maybe the D800 ended up being the ideal compromise between speed and resolution. In the mean time, Canon seems to have done a compromise between still and video.
As for lenses, the Canon 85/1.4 tested on my D3x a couple of years ago blew the gates off Norman's Imatest software; Norman and I did the test together, so I assume it was done correctly. The lens was uniformly sharp from one edge of the frame to the other, outresolving the sensor. But I still prefer the gentler looking Canon 85/1.2 which is actually quite sharp in practice.
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera because it is a bit of both :)
I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Can you explain with a few words what you mean by more flexible?
Best regards
Erik
The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible.
-
Hi Erik,
I push my files around a lot in PS - sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.
Edmund
Hi,
Can you explain with a few words what you mean by more flexible?
Best regards
Erik
-
I think I know what you are talking about. The ds3 has better color for people under all lighting conditions than the d3x, in my opinion.
I shot a bit with the d3x and really liked it, under controlled tethered shooting conditions. The ds3 I liked better for mixed lighting and natural/practicals. The ds3 files hold their color better when pressed hard. The VF is nice, too.
I do think Canon is down, at least amongst commercial shooters. The 5d3 is a let down, not because it is a bad camera but because it is an incremental improvement to very good camera, the 5d2, and because the D800 is so good. The 1dx is great, but again, it's expensive and in the end marginally better than the ds3. Sort of. So their flagships are flagging.
Momtographers buy Rebels. I don't know why. They try them at Best Buy and buy them on Amazon.
The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible. The Canon is usable from outdoors in strong light to indoors with a fast lens, I posted some pictures you saw. My D4 preferred low light levels (in fact it had to be sent back to service because it went soft in direct light) and my D3x was happy only in good light. I think Nikon essentially tried to make two good specialised cameras instead of one general purpose camera but these products were both too specialised; maybe the D800 ended up being the ideal compromise between speed and resolution. In the mean time, Canon seems to have done a compromise between still and video.
As for lenses, the Canon 85/1.4 tested on my D3x a couple of years ago blew the gates off Norman's Imatest software; Norman and I did the test together, so I assume it was done correctly. The lens was uniformly sharp from one edge of the frame to the other, outresolving the sensor. But I still prefer the gentler looking Canon 85/1.2 which is actually quite sharp in practice.
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera :)
I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests :)
Edmund
-
D3x files could be pushed far if shot and lit well.
The D800 is in another league. Better than the P30+ in terms of holding together under pressure. That being said, the color is not to my liking and needs post work.
Hi Erik,
I push my files around a lot in PS - sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.
Edmund
-
I haven't worked with too many D3X files, but the D800 files are miles ahead of anything from Canon (Event he new 5D III and 6D) in terms of holding up in post. But like Tmark said and as I mentioned in my other thread, the color requires a lot of work in post; especially for portraiture.
The Leaf files I've worked on are one step further ahead.
-
I haven't worked with too many D3X files, but the D800 files are miles ahead of anything from Canon (Event he new 5D III and 6D) in terms of holding up in post. But like Tmark said and as I mentioned in my other thread, the color requires a lot of work in post; especially for portraiture.
The Leaf files I've worked on are one step further ahead.
If you want to check out Canon files, try looking at them with DPP. In my experience, using DPP rather than ACR is like getting a new camera; in fact the Canon color is simply *wrong* in ACR, in the sense that the primaries are wrong you can go and adjust them in the appropriate tab and things will improve.
Edmund
-
If you want to check out Canon files, try looking at them with DPP. In my experience, using DPP rather than ACR is like getting a new camera; in fact the Canon color is simply *wrong* in ACR, in the sense that the primaries are wrong you can go and adjust them in the appropriate tab and things will improve.
Edmund
I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.
It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away. ;D
-
I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.
It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away. ;D
And the D800 gets blown away by the Sony A7, I guess - you can't beat fashion :)
Edmund
-
And the D800 gets blown away by the Sony A7, I guess - you can't beat fashion :)
Edmund
From what I've seen, yes; the A7R (Not the A7) files do seem more detailed than the D800/E files. Haven't pushed a RAW in post yet, but I would presume it will hold up just fine.
-
Hi,
That is interesting. I would presume that what you see is a characteristic of the Color Grid Array (CGA). It is possible/probable that the filters on the Nikon have less overlap than on Canon. Less overlap means that the sensor is less sensitive. If you consider the D800 a mainly low ISO camera and the 5DIII mainly a high ISO camera it may make a bit of sense.
Best regards
Erik
I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.
It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away. ;D
-
The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own.
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera because it is a bit of both :)
I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests :)
Edmund
Agree. I find Nikon color . . . global at least when the subject is breathing, but you can make any file work.
The 1ds3 is a much better camera in file and use than my 1dx, expect focus.
I bought the 1dx because . . . actually I'm not sure why I bought the 1dx. Oh yea I remember because it shoots video, though I never use Canon for video so I guess that's a wash.
The 5d2 makes a nice file, not a great camera, but a good file, the 5d3 I've tested and used on a project bored me. Its way too smooth, way too global in color.
I also find Canon lenses L or otherwise to be prettier than the new nikons.
But Edmund is dead on about DPP. It's like having a new camera. C-1 is ok, Iridient Developer is very good if you take the time, lightroom no.
If Canon comes out with something whiz bang I might look, but I also might take a positive step back and buy two 1ds3's.
I called today to try to find an A7 to test, (mostly focus) but they are few and far between.
IMO
BC
-
But Edmund is dead on about DPP. It's like having a new camera. C-1 is ok, Iridient Developer is very good if you take the time, lightroom no.
If Canon comes out with something whiz bang I might look, but I also might take a positive step back and buy two 1ds3's.
I called today to try to find an A7 to test, (mostly focus) but they are few and far between.
IMO
BC
I traded my 5D2 for a junkyard 1Ds3 because I wanted something that could focus, and surprise! the files are solid. In particular, the cheekbone burnout effect which annoyed me on the 1ds2 in my model-shooting days is now well controlled.
Nobody seems to want these tanks of a camera, so I think there is going to be a huge supply of them floating around. I think the shutters are rated forever. Maybe you too can trade for your 5D2's if you really don't want them for video.
There is one issue with using this aging camera btw, apparently some newer Canon chargers supplied with the 1Ds3 have issues with clone batteries, so if you get clones get them in a pack with a charger -or bite the bullet on Canon batteries.
DPP pulls a lot more detail and "shape" out of the file than anything else - I knew that but was still surprised again at the extent of the change - the files come to life. I really don't know if this is due to Canon having measured their AA filter and computed an exact inverse, or whether they are using some trickery.
Edmund
-
I traded my 5D2 for a junkyard 1Ds3 because I wanted something that could focus, and surprise! the files are solid. In particular, the cheekbone burnout effect which annoyed me on the 1ds2 in my model-shooting days is now well controlled.
Nobody seems to want these tanks of a camera, so I think there is going to be a huge supply of them floating around. I think the shutters are rated forever. Maybe you too can trade for your 5D2's if you really don't want them for video.
There is one issue with using this aging camera btw, apparently some newer Canon chargers supplied with the 1Ds3 have issues with clone batteries, so if you get clones get them in a pack with a charger -or bite the bullet on Canon batteries.
DPP pulls a lot more detail and "shape" out of the file than anything else - I knew that but was still surprised again at the extent of the change - the files come to life. I really don't know if this is due to Canon having measured their AA filter and computed an exact inverse, or whether they are using some trickery.
Edmund
I don't think these large cameras will go away for professional production, they're just too sturdy and too well accepted. I see a lot of Canons on set, less Nikons, some medium format, which is always an H body.
I think DPP works because Canon doesn't give out all the info of their file, or if they do Adobe or others don't use it. I've always been told that Adobe does backward compatible for their raw processing, but I think Adobe just like's orange skintones.
One thing the 1dx does well is tether with DPP though ethernet. We did a gig this year and shot over 9,000 frames and not one freeze on the computer, not one drop, not one issue. Never have I tethered for 4 days and not had at least one crash a day so the ethernet tethering is wicked and I love dpp to tether. I run bridge in the background to check focus and to sort as we go on the fly and any powerbook will run it.
1ds2's and 3's do blow out their shutters. Blew one on every 2 and 3 I owned and 1 shutter on the 1ds1. That's 5 shutters, but Canon fixes them fast and cheap.
I rarely sell cameras, could kick myself for selling both of my 3's, but I might buy two more and just keep working.
I know I won't buy another 5d2. I bought it for video and never shot more than 10 minutes with it, but for stills it's ok, not great, but ok.
For the Non pixel peeping crowd the Canon is still the favorite at least from what I see in the studios and cities I work and I would be surprised if more Nikons are used for professional work than Canons and no I don't have a dog in this hunt as I own cameras from almost every brand.
Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system. The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.
This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras. I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.
If I had more faith in sony and knew how well the A7 focused and tethered I might buy one, but I dunno, Sony always worries me.
IMO
BC
It's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.
I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.
-
J,
I blew 2 1ds series shutters.
Adobe have the best workflow in the business, bar none, but the files are somehow not really up to the polished quality of the rest of Lightroom.
Edmund
I don't think these large cameras will go away for professional production, they're just too sturdy and too well accepted. I see a lot of Canons on set, less Nikons, some medium format, which is always an H body.
I think DPP works because Canon doesn't give out all the info of their file, or if they do Adobe or others don't use it. I've always been told that Adobe does backward compatible for their raw processing, but I think Adobe just like's orange skintones.
One thing the 1dx does well is tether with DPP though ethernet. We did a gig this year and shot over 9,000 frames and not one freeze on the computer, not one drop, not one issue. Never have I tethered for 4 days and not had at least one crash a day so the ethernet tethering is wicked and I love dpp to tether. I run bridge in the background to check focus and to sort as we go on the fly and any powerbook will run it.
1ds2's and 3's do blow out their shutters. Blew one on every 2 and 3 I owned and 1 shutter on the 1ds1. That's 5 shutters, but Canon fixes them fast and cheap.
I rarely sell cameras, could kick myself for selling both of my 3's, but I might buy two more and just keep working.
I know I won't buy another 5d2. I bought it for video and never shot more than 10 minutes with it, but for stills it's ok, not great, but ok.
For the Non pixel peeping crowd the Canon is still the favorite at least from what I see in the studios and cities I work and I would be surprised if more Nikons are used for professional work than Canons and no I don't have a dog in this hunt as I own cameras from almost every brand.
Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system. The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.
This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras. I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.
If I had more faith in sony and knew how well the A7 focused and tethered I might buy one, but I dunno, Sony always worries me.
IMO
BC
It's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.
I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.
-
It's strange how some cameras just fit some situations.
A few years ago got booked for a gig in Brazil and Mexico for a campaign and coffee table book.
I wanted to work faster than my 1ds2 (which Canon slowed up after some issues) and bought a 1d (not S) 3 for the high iso and speed of shooting.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0131.jpg)
I just zoned on this camera for this gig and when I got back to LA sold it in two days, before I even looked at the files.
I was kinda worried that the files would be too small for the book, but rezzed them up never said word and the publisher loved them so life went on.
Now I look back and wish I'd had kept that damn thing even with the small file and the APS H sensor which for some reason I like that strange crop.
It's funny I liked it so much I rented it (and I rarely rent anything) so many times I could have bought it.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/lifestyle/pictures/rr_life_0147.jpg)
Loved this man in Brazil. He told me his dream was to live in Brooklyn. Very cool.
IM0
BC
-
Huge drop in profit and a fall in camera sales at Nikon. Maybe the market leader Canon should buy the small player Nikon and assimilate the technology?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107)
here I must pivot to to a partial defense of Nikon's DSLRs. Those poor results do not seem to be anything to do with slipping in its competition with Canon (or Sony). Instead they come from:
1. poor DSLR sales industry-wide; at Canon too.
2. particularly poor sales of the Nikon One system; breaking that out, [Nikon's] DSLR's seem to be about holding level, a decent results compared to the DSLR market as a whole
3. compact camera sales, which dropped far more than interchangeable lens camera sales.
4. continuing decline in Nikon's sales of steppers and such, where ASML continues to increase its huge market share lead at the expense of every competitor.
Thom Hogan does a good job of reporting and analyzing some camera makers' financial reports (but maybe only Nikon and the main mirrorless makers)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-financials-posted.html
-
The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)
Edmund
here I must pivot to to a partial defense of Nikon's DSLRs. Those poor results do not seem to be anything to do with slipping in its competition with Canon (or Sony). Instead they come from:
1. poor DSLR sales industry-wide; at Canon too.
2. particularly poor sales of the Nikon One system; breaking that out, DSLR's seem to be about holding level, a decent results compared to the DSLR market as a whole
3. compact camera sales, which dropped far more than interchangeable lens camera sales.
4. continuing decline in Nikon's sales of steppers and such, where ASML continues to increase its huge maker share lead at the expense of every competitor.
Thom Hogan does a good job of reporting and analyzing some camera makers' financial reports (but maybe only Nikon and the main mirrorless makers)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-financials-posted.html
-
The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)
Edmund
The problem for Sony in photography retail is they have this idea that they are a premium brand with consumers. They think they can charge premium prices for their brand recognition. When you get the Sony A99 at 50% more than the D600 while having lower performance in ISO, DR, color, AF, 12 bit vs 14 bit, you see a big disconnect from reality. It's the same on the pricing of their best lenses. To me that was time to move on.
-
The photo market may see more consolidation - I'm sure that quite a few people have noticed that Nikon has an established brand, and is good at making lenses while Sony is good at making video cameras, sensors and mirrorless bodies, but has an uphill struggle in the photo retail business :)
Considering that the business model of camera companies is to propose mostly closed systems where a significant part of the recurrent revenue is resulting from lenses purchases, how would you suggest that Nikon and Sony manage the 5 or 6 lenses line up they both offer with 3 or 4 different mounts?
On top of that, Sony's sensors are manufactured by a different legal entity from their camera division. Nikon is their largest DSLR sized imaging sensor customer by far (to the extend that it can be said Nikon funded a significant part of the Exmor technology developement) but imaging is just a small part of their business. At least nikon was, because they have recently shifted a very significant volume of APS-C sensors to Toshiba without impact on image quality.
But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on. For other photographers, there is a lot of overlap between the capabilities of the a7r and that of the D800E. I am personally not experimenting focus issues on my D800 and keep getting very sharp images of the eyes of my young daughter at f1.4 using the 85mm f1.4 AF-S, that is in natural light shooting situations, not just in still standing studio images. I believe that the only other cameras on the market in the same ball park from a focus performance standpoint are the Canon 5DIII, 1DX and D4. The a7r would be a regression here. She is not my daughter, but this was also shot at 1.4 on the 85mm.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3814/11150675205_eae43541e7.jpg)
So, to my eyes, the only case where the A7r would provide significant value in terms of photographic outcome is when third party manual focus lenses are used on the bodies, and that is probably not a scenario that Sonykon would base a business case on. The compactness argument is mostly moot once you put a fast prime or a zoom lens on the camera. So the a7R and D800E end up being similar form factor devices with different strenghts and weaknesses (EVF vs OVF mostly).
We'll see, but I consider the chance of Sony and Nikon merging their operations to be lower than that of Canon releasing a MF system. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those 2 are great images, the first has great depth and its beautiful. I really like the color you toned on that.
Having worked REDs, Nikons, Olympus, Leica, Phase, Leaf, Pansonic, only Canon and Panasonic have a logical control and menu system. The rest always make me stop and think, uh, oh yea, there's the zoom to focus button, or something like that.
This forum use to have less fanboys, but now it seems like people are talking politics or religion when they mention cameras. I'd buy anything if it works better for me . . . anything, any brand.
I agree, and sure, maybe MF might take a long time before they even think of larger sensors, But imagine Oly jumping into Full Frame! They have GREAT focus/lenses, and solid cameras. I would surely consider a well built Oly with meaty files. I too have ZERO brand loyalty...What ever that means.
[quoteIt's funny though, most of us talk cameras and raw processing like it's a holy grail, but 90% of all retouchers, want a guide file for color, but usually toss it, drop the raw in photoshop, process and go to work.
I'd bet 90% of every professional image is processed in photoshop's raw convertor.[/quote]
When working from the RAW file, it really depends on the system photographed in. I would always try C1 as a default, but if its a lot of files and not a MF, I don't hesitate to drop them in LR. I rarely get guide files. Art Directors want a certain look, cold warm etc. But Lots of colors get shifted in PS anyway.
I will surely revisit DPP as I too remember good things. I just don't remember how much better it was. Likely worth it!
Both my 1ds-I blew shutters. Canon replaced them for a low price, on one of them they replaced the SENSOR! No charge or explanation! I asked and they said they noticed something needing replacement???!!
I loved the files out of that 1Ds, sort of regret getting rid of the last one. These cameras TANK build is really a for Outdoor jouralists, and nature shooters on the run, and they are just super solid tools. I see that build quality a need in the fields and different environments they are used in. If I were in the middle east covering news in sandy storms or the jungles of moist cloud forests in South America, I would want a 1Ds series. ( What I had , but for personal work :-)
On another note, I agree with Edmund on the files holding up before "breaking". That is what I tried to explain in the bigning of the thread....
Hi Erik,
I push my files around a lot in PS - sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.
Edmund
-
"But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on."
Bernard,
I'm not sure that's a fair dig. People were happy with the 1DS, and the 5d2 seems to be getting enough work done that lots of people don't see a reason to upgrade. Better reasons to like the A7R are its smaller size and lower cost. The d800 is a lot heavier and bulkier than a lot of amateur photographers would like. Trend is smaller not necessarily better. Canikon has to compete with cell phones not MF.
Off topic a bit, I sold a new Rolleiflex TLR to a guy today who said he wanted to buy a 'real' camera. Not sure if he was thinking 'real' meant film or 'real' meant a camera where the photographer made all the decisions, or maybe a camera that would last more than just three years before it needed an upgrade?
-
"But, let's face it, the A7r is mostly appealing for Canon shooters who have been waiting for years for a decent sensor to put their lenses on."
Bernard,
I'm not sure that's a fair dig. People were happy with the 1DS, and the 5d2 seems to be getting enough work done that lots of people don't see a reason to upgrade. Better reasons to like the A7R are its smaller size and lower cost. The d800 is a lot heavier and bulkier than a lot of amateur photographers would like. Trend is smaller not necessarily better. Canikon has to compete with cell phones not MF.
I never said that all Canon users were attracted by the a7r, nor that great work could not be achieved with the current Canon cameras.
I just said that the a7r is very appealing for those Canon shooters looking for a way to use their excellent lenses on a last generation sensor.
All the Canon shooters I personnally know well (ok, that is only 2 guys) have already bought a Sony a7r. They did it out of frustration with Canon sensor technology. I don't think they are the only 2 in the world.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I think you're right - Canon is probably racing to release a better sensor.
Having both the D800 and the A7R out there is too much competition.
Edmund
I never said that all Canon users were attracted by the a7r, nor that great work could not be achieved with the current Canon cameras.
I just said that the a7r is very appealing for those Canon shooters looking for a way to use their excellent lenses on a last generation sensor.
All the Canon shooters I personnally know well (ok, that is only 2 guys) have already bought a Sony a7r. They did it out of frustration with Canon sensor technology. I don't think they are the only 2 in the world.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Its also the fact that while the 1Dstudio was designed to also work in the studio, it really isn't a option for detail work. So the MF sharpness/No AA, and workflow was the only option other than a couple others (Sigma-Foveon) but at lower resolutions. With d800E and the A7R that area is now also competing with MF while Canon is not.
-
With d800E and the A7R that area is now also competing with MF while Canon is not.
You think so? I don't, but I would not be surprised if in one or two years you are saying that Nikon is now needing to play catch up. It's been back and forth for a long while. I'm don't get ruffled by that game.
None of the DSLRs are touching MF in look, or important features in my opinion. When one of those companies comes out with a big view 45 degree prism, something other than the 3::2 crop, leaf shutters (or no shutter) and decently fast sync speed, I'll get interested in having another look.
Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800. All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices. And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.
And when I look at new digital stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
-
Hi,
Just to remind you, some of us are taking pictures, and that is something we can do with any camera at hand. Some may be better than others but most are good enough. I am pretty sure most of the best images are shot on Canons, even if they lack DR and MP. Another point may be that on all my trips trough Yellowstone and Grand Teton national park I have seen only one MF camera and that was Noblex panoramic camera.
Personally, I have both MFD, full frame 135 and APS-C, and actually use all of them. I never go for a walk with the Hasselblad alone. A DSLR and two lenses (24-70/2.8 and 70-400/4-5.6) always come along. On longer walks, it is the DSLR that comes along and the MFD stays in the trunk. The APS-C I use as a walkaround camera and for long telephoto. The APS-C has the smallest pixels which is longest reach in telephoto work. Any of those cameras make excellent A2-size prints, which hapens to be my standard print size.
I don't need fast sync speeds as I never use flash outside, but can see it is useful for many applications.
There are features that MFD lacks, like electronic viewfinder and electronic first shutter. Personally I use live view focusing at 11X all the time. That is the one feature I miss on the Hasselblad V/P45+.
The Rollei is of course a far more advanced camera than my classical Hasselblad, which I mostly have chosen because of the cheaply available Zeiss lenses.
Best regards
Erik
You think so? I don't, but I would not be surprised if in one or two years you are saying that Nikon is now needing to play catch up. It's been back and forth for a long while. I'm don't get ruffled by that game.
None of the DSLRs are touching MF in look, or important features in my opinion. When one of those companies comes out with a big view 45 degree prism, something other than the 3::2 crop, leaf shutters (or no shutter) and decently fast sync speed, I'll get interested in having another look.
Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800. All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices. And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.
And when I look at new digital stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
-
Personally, I know as many people getting back into or trying film or Alternate process than I do people buying the A7R or D800. All the little digital cameras have the same flat look - IMHO. People want a way to differentiate themselves besides lowering their prices. And MF and LF film cameras are quite inexpensive now on the second hand market.
And when I look at new digital stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
Of the photographers I know that use film, few do it for commerce, most for personal work, some for editorial. Yes at times it's a different look, though I find a lot of that debatable because most people work an image in post regardless of the capture and film covers a lot of territory.
To me most of the interesting films are gone like Agfa and the fuji films like provia look just like contrasty digital to me.
Personally I think my old Phase backs produce more of a different look than most films, but that's all personal opinion and that takes a roll your own look in post.
I do know I could sell all of my Canons and Nikons and not blink. I wouldn't sell the Canon glass because I use it for some of the REDs and well you can't buy glass back at the price you sell. I also wouldn't sell any of my old Nikon F lenses, but the new ones bore me.
When it comes to digital cameras, every second that passes a digital camera drops in price.
I doubt seriously if I'd ever sell my contax phase(s) but they are the cameras I use the least. (go figure).
BC
-
And when I look at new digital stuff, I'm much more interested in the Black Magic pocket cinema camera and the Sigma DP2M than I am in the A7R or the D800.
I love my DP2m, there is something special to the files that is so very right.
I really wish they released a full frame equivalent. Considering the likely progress over 2-3 years since the SD1 was released, it would probably only be second to the IQ280 at base ISO in terms of image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
J,
Whatever one says, there is really a difference in looks between digital cameras. Now this doesn't of course matter to professionals who just throw a file at a retoucher but getting caught with the wrong tool for a situation is a real nuisance for a standalone practitioner or an amateur.
Let me give an example: Some cameras just produce superb BW prints with desaturate and a slight curves adjustment - you just need a decent calibrated monitor to see what you're doing - and some need very heavy work to get a file to print crisply in monochrome. If you are a pro it doesn't matter, a retoucher will do the work while you go to the disco drink champagne with the model and her friends, but if you're an amateur you will prefer to hit "print" and get your 4 or 5 8x10 "proof of camera use for wife" images and go bowling, rather than spend the night on it.
People like you get paid for creating a look, rather than turning up on time, and so you'll end up with a box of different tools for different looks - this explains why you end up with so many of them - my feeling is you are so proud of your retouch pipeline and ability to fix what's broken that you are now denying the obvious.
Edmund
PS I am still amused by the fact that you sold your original 1Ds - if ever there was a dSLR with an interesting look that was it.:)
Personally I think my old Phase backs produce more of a different look than most films, but that's all personal opinion and that takes a roll your own look in post.
I do know I could sell all of my Canons and Nikons and not blink. I wouldn't sell the Canon glass because I use it for some of the REDs and well you can't buy glass back at the price you sell. I also wouldn't sell any of my old Nikon F lenses, but the new ones bore me.
I doubt seriously if I'd ever sell my contax phase(s) but they are the cameras I use the least. (go figure).
BC