Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Nemo on October 14, 2009, 11:39:47 am
-
An interesting article from the BJP:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870014 (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870014)
But Hasselblad is adamant that if the medium format market is to grow, the cameras have to become simpler to use, while still providing an outstanding image quality.
That's wrong. It is a question of price, relative to 35mm "pro" cameras.
-
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=http://digitalimagingu.com/articles/digitalimagingdetectors.html)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (http://digitalimagingu.com/articles/digitalimagingdetectors.html)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]CMOS sensors allow gain manipulation of individual photodiodes, region-of-interest read-out, high speed sampling, electronic shuttering and exposure control. They have extraordinary dynamic range as well as an ideal format for the computer interface. It is likely that they will replace CCD cameras in a number of scientific applications in the near future.[/quote]
MFD had better get busy then...
-
Poulsen: 'It's hard to see ourselves survive unless we grow the market. How do you increase the market? By creating a dream product as an alternative to 35mm solutions, and creating a simple message where the only questions are "will it benefit my business?" and "can I afford it?". If we do it right, we will get more customers from the 35mm market.'
Wrong again. The price is just a variable, but a very important one, and it is the more important variable if you want to expand the market... I am reading this and I am shocked. MF manufacturers (including Leica) don't get the picture...
-
Agreed, It is about price. For Pro Shooters a faster return on our investment is a priority these days.
However, I don't know how the MF Manufacturers even make a profit. Their market shrinks as their overhead increases . I can understand a heavy price tag per unit. MF makers can't compete with the market share of Canon and Nikon. That's why I say sell your craft not the gear. Smoke and mirrors boys,... smoke and mirrors.
-
David Bell, managing director of Leica Camera UK: 'Although the S2 has been developed for digital photo-graphy, with its size and handling echoing that of a 35mm camera, its positioning is firmly as the new standard of medium format photography, removing the barrier between 35mm and medium format cameras.'
The barrier is the price... In the film era the price of a top class 35mm camera and a 6x6 or 645 MF camera was very similar... Different systems, different features, but prices not so different. A question of choice. But now the price differences are in the x2 or x3 magnitude!
-
MFD had better get busy then...
It's difficult to tell in these short articles what was said, what was left out, though the quotes were brief, maybe on target . . . well almost on target.
If these companies really believe their main market is photography for commerce, then they somewhat glossed over the real reason any professional photographer shoots digital . . .
because you can see the image, the client can see the image and everyone goes home secure.
I'm not bashing medium format but it's somewhat ironic that seeing the image is so important, though as of today, all medium format backs have challenged lcds, or require a computer to get a decent preview.
Now when it comes to tethering, I've never met a photographer that "loves" tethering, anymore than I've met a DP, or good director that loves the video tap for cinema cameras. It is just another level of complexity, limited mobility that gets in the way of making a photograph.
It is sometimes necessary, sometimes mandatory, but I've shot few sessions in the digital segment of my career, where at some point I didn't have to unplug to get the image I wanted. In fact 99.9% of the best imagery I've produced have always come from an untethered camera, which is ironic because medium format prides itself on "superior" image quality though on the other hand makes it very difficult to tell if the photographer actually captured the "superior" image.
I really would have thought that the very first thing a specialty camera maker would have put resource to would be the preview.
Imagine a Hasselblad with a whopping 5" screen and a wi-fi to a device like an Ipod touch. Imagine if you could hand out ten ipod touches around the room and just shoot
knowing people could look or not look, zoom in or not zoom in, but the photographer would be free to actually move more than 15' from the camera.
Imagine a 6 figure shoot without a digital tech.
Also left out in that article was any mention of time investment. Professional photographers that know there way around the digital process are just completely overburdened with time demands. I know zero photographers that go to bed each night (make that each morning) knowing they
completed all of their tasks for the day, even 1/2 of that.
I know at the end of every still photography shoot day I'm looking at 1 to 2 days of post production before we even get to final selects. No photographer ever dreamed they would become their own lab, pre press house and proofer, much less web site/gallery builder and html expert.
The software of these cameras needs to be easier, not just faster, easier, because I've done the test of moving 42 sliders back and forth trying to get to final and at the end of the day, it's 50% more time effective just to produce a properly exposed image, then send it to photoshop and do the color and tone corrections there.
Again, I'm amazed that Iphone Apps are outpacing, out offering what is available in professional software suites and do it with a few clicks.
The other thing this medium format article did not touch on is higher iso. Shooting low light, continuous light, available light with some slight modifiers has opened up a whole new world of photography and I and others have expanded our repertoire with incorporating found light along with simple modifiers in ways we could never do with film.
I've shot with the illumination of window lights in soho, light from a juke box in Dallas, I even used a TV screen as a key light in Miami and medium format just doesn't like to go that direction. Sometimes you can shoot low light with medium format but you usually are locked down on a tripod saying, hold it , don't move, God don't move.
The last thing I have to say about this article is nobody mentioned motion capture. (I hate the term video, cause video sounds cheap).
Still photography is not dead, but motion is with us and won't go away, actually it allows us to offer more, create more, do more than we could ever dream possible just a few years ago and the ability to offer a client motion imagery, even if they don't ask for it makes them happy and making a client happy is the goal. That's doesn't mean we all have to be roll over queens, though giving more than expected keeps you working, regardless of the economy.
I find it interesting that Phase looks at Hasselblad, Hasselblad looks at Canon/Nikon but no one has actually asked us what we need tomorrow, not today. I've talked to different makers, mentioned lenses, lcd's etc. but in the end the camera we need doesn't exist because the work we will be producing in a year or two hasn't been dreamed up yet.
There is all this talk about the cost of medium format cameras and for what they do some of it seems absurd, but before anybody makes anything new, sends out another pdf roadmap press release, I suggest they climb on board and go through a photographers production from start to finish.
$40,000 for a camera, I''ll write that check in an instant if and this is a big if, the camera doesn't stop me from shooting anything I desire, in fact the camera can do so much I have to dream up new ways to use it at it's fullest.
I'd love to see a non mirror box camera, with a big lcd, wifi previews to hand held devices, tether easy to larger computers, iso that is really moveable, not somewhat moveable and most of all real full frame, high def raw motion capture that is beyond the dslr offerings.
I want a camera to rock my world, to make my work better, my life easier, my clients go holy shit that's amazing.
I want in camera processing like iphone apps that give me the look I want out of the camera for galleries and previews so at the end of the day, all I have to do is drag 1000 images to the web for review.
I want these things to last more than 12 months. I don't mind buying new lenses, buying new accessories, but I'm tired of looking at almost brand new cameras sitting on a shelf because the lcd doesn't give a proper preview, or the iso just won't go past slow film without a month of post work.
Most of all I want these camera companies to stop looking at each other for answers and look at me and other photographers.
I don't want to hear about megapixels cause megapixels is so 2009. I want to hear about what will work for 2012.
I want the camera makers to talk to a client that doesn't hope for good work, but demands great work.
When I read an article that addresses this I'll then write a new check for equipment.
The thing I really want when I read these articles is for the makers to stop talking about each other and talk about what they are going to offer, better yet, what they offer today.
Phase needs to forget about Hasselblad, Hasselblad needs to drop the talk about Leica, Leica just needs to get on with it and deliver product.
JR
-
James, great write-up!
Historically photographer's artistic creativity is tightly coupled with creativity on the technical side.
Most of the photography known to me is overly consumed in fighting with limitations of the offered technologies.
-
Excellent James!
-
Agreed, It is about price.
¿Why do they not discount the lower res versions and continue to sell them? a 22Mpx back and an old Sinar is useful kit - the answer, I think, that there is so much 2nd hand stuff on the market that it is not worth their time making new e.g. 22s?
-
¿Why do they not discount the lower res versions and continue to sell them? a 22Mpx back and an old Sinar is useful kit - the answer, I think, that there is so much 2nd hand stuff on the market that it is not worth their time making new e.g. 22s?
Who do you mean by they (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38355) ?
-
Funny thing is that there really isn't that much second gear around at the moment (2nd hand market). We had a big rush early in the year and some this summer, but from here, other normal MFDB for sale forums and ebay, not much out to he honest. What I see at the dealers is much older stuff that is tether only gear. Where are all those many A22's that photo schools bought for so many years. Where are are all the non plus backs from Phase. I guess just being used by current owners and everyone is sitting tight.
John, some of the Leaf dealers, now that production has recommenced, are listing their ex. demo and rental stock to make room for new Leaf Aptus-II's so you should start seeing some A22, A75, A75S etc. showing up.
-
No one want to comment about volume ? very telling. Ten years ago they could sell 60,000 a year now it's 6000. We had many threads on here pondering the volumes these figures are from the CEO.
Also surprised no one titled a thread "Hasselblad admits mistake"
This from the same BJP issue: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870001 (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870001)
On bringing back "trade up/in".
-
Wrong again. The price is just a variable, but a very important one, and it is the more important variable if you want to expand the market... I am reading this and I am shocked. MF manufacturers (including Leica) don't get the picture...
And that's why the 800lb gorilla coming down the street will obliterate them in no more than 2-3 years. What exactly does happen when Nikon puts out a 40MP camera with no AA filter(or makes it optional as a special order)? At even Nikon's inflated prices, it will blow a hole in the side of the 20-40K DB market. Because the boss and/or client will look at both and not give a damn about the minor differences between the lenses and focal lengths and so on. They will see nearly identical results for 1/10th the price and buy it every time.
If we were talking cars, the DB companies would be exotic car makers. Well, the ugly truth is Audi and Porsche and Mercedes are now making cars that are *this* close to competing with them at a fraction of the price. In ten years, it'll be really hard to justify getting an exotic car when the commodity ones are cheaper, more reliable, and drive better.
-
And that's why the 800lb gorilla coming down the street will obliterate them in no more than 2-3 years. What exactly does happen when Nikon puts out a 40MP camera with no AA filter(or makes it optional as a special order)?
For applications where resolution and cost are the main factors, that will work. But there are many other things in play. Even if the 35mm sensor had 100 MP, it still would not put out the same image as the larger format. Just as a 15 MP digicam cannot put out the same image as a 6 MP APS-C. Contrast at a given spatial frequency cannot be matched in a smaller format just by adding more pixels, nor can SNR in the top N stops of dynamic range be matched except with extreme differences in technology. Of course, for many applications the difference will be small enough that it does not justify the price.
-
Who do you mean by they (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38355) ?
I think he meant You Guys at Phlemya but he was trying to be polite.
I also think he meant how bout something with a sensor from the current decade for a good price. (insert smile).
BC
-
excellent as always james....did you copy/paste this post? i feel like i have seen this from you before:)
actually many of us have said the same thing for years now....and the only thing that has really improved is the one thing nobody really had an issue with to begin with.....a 4 year old 22mpix back still smokes all dslrs at 100iso....but i guess it must be easier to keep piling on the megapixels which only make our lives more miserable and workload larger....
if any MF maker would just go through this forum and look at what people have wanted for years.....how about 8 af spots? how about that bigger lcd? james put it all in there......
the reason i don't shoot DMF anymore is simply because a 2500$ camera gives me a file that holds up beautifully to the one from my old 25000$ P30 file....and i can light a shot with my iphone or a tv and my previews look great and everybody is happy and i can process the files in 1/3 of the time....and i can control the whole thing incl previews from my iphone (onone dslr remote)....
there simply isn't a "DMF" camera out there i would even want...ok the S2 is pretty hot but i know it won't in any way improve my shots and definitely not my workflow.....
i guess it comes down to the fact that the people who own DMF these days are mostly hobby shooters and rental houses.....the "old" MF base of pros now shoots DSLR and rents the 60mpix thing if the crazy client wants it and wants to pay for it.....
nikon announcing a FF 12mpix camera that can shoot a crow in a tunnel really sums things up nicely......it is the exact opposite of anything DMF...yet it has a bigger market, will sell more and most importantly we will see something similar in higher resolution for the people who need and want it.....nikon actually made it 720 (and not 1080) because this camera is for reporters, sportshooters and such...they don't want 1080....
what is funny to me is that the price at 4200$ seems too steep compared to what is out there....and these people talk about 40000$ cameras.....
-
I want a camera to rock my world, to make my work better, my life easier, my clients go holy shit that's amazing.
you might wanna listen to the following photog ...
he seems to be on the right track ...
[blockquote]Second note to self.
Do not buy any more cameras. What I own works, stop messing around. Go to the Pit Bull shop in East LA and buy that shock collar.
Spend more time using what I got, what I know and less time in front of the computer learning something that doesn't really change anything.
[/blockquote][/i]
-
but i guess it must be easier to keep piling on the megapixels which only make our lives more miserable and workload larger....
Unfortunately, if I understand it correctly, the megapixels comes "for free" so-to-speak as a result of the process technology they use to manufacture the wafers - If they previously used 130nm process, and now are using 90nm, the transistors are inherently smaller and so you automatically get more space (if sensor size is fixed), so they just fill it up with more pixels. And then it comes across "impressive" in the marketing. Still, I suppose with P1's P65+ sales being as good as they say it is... but does it sell for it's physical sensor size or for the megapixels?
-
I want a camera to rock my world, to make my work better, my life easier, my clients go holy shit that's amazing.
If you depend on a camera to make clients go holy shit that's amazing it won't be long before all your competitors have written the same check you have and ** POOF ** there goes your competitive advantage and you'll be back where you started, $40,000 poorer. Better to develop skills that nobody else can replicate.
-
And that's why the 800lb gorilla coming down the street will obliterate them in no more than 2-3 years. What exactly does happen when Nikon puts out a 40MP camera with no AA filter(or makes it optional as a special order)?
It happens that it may not be possible or worth using it above f5,6/f8 because of diffraction.
And that apply to any of the 35mm dslr makers.
-
An interesting article from the BJP:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870014 (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870014)
That's wrong. It is a question of price, relative to 35mm "pro" cameras.
If it was just a question of price, then both Phase and Hasselblad would already be out of business. The day I switched to MF digital was the day photography changed for me. Previous forays into digital left me worrying what my clients would think of the final product, left me worrying that the results weren't up to my standards. The hasselblad "amazed" me the very first time I used it. I can't say that about any 35mm dslr I've owned.
Today I am lucky enough to own both a a 1ds and an H3d, and I can honestly say that the 1ds gets used only on vacation. It's always around as a back up (although it's never actually been called off the bench), and the only exception is its occasional use when I need high ISO or fast framerate. The 1ds is the first 35mm digital I've used that matches 35mm film, but still doesn't have the resolving power of 120 film. But there is something tangibly different between the pixels in the two cameras, and anyone who has used both, knows it. (40mp on a 24x36mm sensor doesn't interest me. And, IMHO....take that AA filter off and you will truly expose the limits of 35mm glass.)
Today's Hasselblad's cost 3-4 times the highest end dslr's, a ratio that isn't that significantly different from film days. Today's hasselblads cost about 5 times what an H1 cost before the digital transition. A 1ds costs about 5 times what the top of the line film canon cost a few years ago. Today, the MF digital market is infinitessimal compared to the 35mm dslr market. just as the MF film camera market was never more than a blip (even at 60,000 units) on the screen of Canon and Nikon in the golden age of film.
I think Poulsen's point is interesting, although it hasn't received much of a reception here. He's really talking the big picture and everyone here seems so focused on price. The whole "nerdy" comment really hit home. I remember the days of megavision, imacon, phase, leaf et al...these weren't photography companies...they were computer companies. If hasselblad (pre Poulsen) had quietly developed it's digital side back in the late 90's like canon and nikon did, then perhaps things would be different today. The vision of remaking Hasselblad as a photography company is a pretty bold move...one that Phase is also now doing. Long term, I think it's better for the MF industry...and yes part of that remaking is about making the cameras more usable and simple. Cheaper? That will come when and if "the competition" -- as Poulsen see's it --Canon and Nikon -- truly develop a group of products that compete not just in usability (they do) but also in quality (they don't). I don't think Poulsen is interested in selling 60,000 cameras next year at $7000 a piece. I think he rather do 12,000 at $30,000. I don't think the medium format market will ever hit the unit sales it used to, but I think it can remain an essential part of the industry...even at the high price point...for many years to come.
I work in a small market where a- one can't rent and b- there are no other photographers with a MF digital. The fact that I use one, combined with years of passion and technique, puts me in demand. The MF premium is worth every penny to me. I'm happy with the work...my clients (who..as many have said, probably don't know better) are happy too.
Do I wish MF was cheaper...hell, yes. But despite that there are a small, but committed and amazingly talented group of photographers using it. I think you'll find it used in a disproportionate number of the highest dollar shoots...and there's a reason for it. And that reason isn't the price.
-
If you depend on a camera to make clients go holy shit that's amazing it won't be long before all your competitors have written the same check you have and ** POOF ** there goes your competitive advantage and you'll be back where you started, $40,000 poorer. Better to develop skills that nobody else can replicate.
Lately, I have not find a client that bother to find out what camera i'm using.
On early digital days, yes there were concerns, even my concerns, but today it is hardly something to lose sleep about.
Eventually I discuss with a CD or AD about the choice of going with a digital back or 35mm, but normally I'm the one rising the question. And I rise the question not mentioning the kind of equipment, but in terms of "intrinsic" quality the client is expecting. Once you know that, is normally photographer call to decide the right equipment and workflow.
As long as the images pop up on a large screen after they are taken, whatever is tethered or via card, everybody is normally amazed... if the photos are good enough to amaze.
-
Now when it comes to tethering, I've never met a photographer that "loves" tethering, anymore than I've met a DP, or good director that loves the video tap for cinema cameras. It is just another level of complexity, limited mobility that gets in the way of making a photograph.
It is sometimes necessary, sometimes mandatory, but I've shot few sessions in the digital segment of my career, where at some point I didn't have to unplug to get the image I wanted. In fact 99.9% of the best imagery I've produced have always come from an untethered camera, which is ironic because medium format prides itself on "superior" image quality though on the other hand makes it very difficult to tell if the photographer actually captured the "superior" image.
James
I guess I'm the oddball. I love tethered shooting. Most of my clients love it as well. Only one reason...Liability. Hey, give me a 30ft firewire cable and I can move around pretty good.
Tethered is the new polaroid. Still have to use post but at least the client feels good about the shoot over all.
Eghhh, my 2 cents.
- Rudy
-
me too! the preview can't be big enough! I shoot 95% of my commercial work tethered. it's great, and it's the only way I can trust my captures. too often I looked at the back of my camera and thought I had it, but on the computer i found out i hadn't.
the screen on the 5d mk2 is especially mean: most pictures look fabulous there, but that doesn't transport to the real world.
I am qute happy that I can divide my set to a shooting area, with me and the subject, the camera and my computer amd a client area, with a big screen only for them. tha last thing I want is a client peeping over my shoulder to look at my LCD.
I tried to do that with the Iphone program, but it is just not big enough for the client to make them happy.
stefan
-
Pentax finally will ship the 645D camera... they announce an "agressive price"... Let's see what happens:
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...08-03/07/p645d/ (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-03/07/p645d/)
.
-
But there is something tangibly different between the pixels in the two cameras, and anyone who has used both, knows it.
Barry,
Your eloquently stated thoughts are consistent with those who have drank the MFD kool-aid. You have spent a great deal of money and have spent a great deal of time looking at pixels at 100% and are now unable to detach yourself emotionally from the output. I am trying to help you to understand how at smaller viewing sizes than 16x24 it could be possible for some of us to have an enjoyable 35mm experience. How? The cameras work without frustration, the customer is happy, and we have not spent $40K + investing in MFD companies and their short-term improvements.
There is something wonderful about editing a well shot image from MFD. But all that pixel goodness is lost, and even on you a week later comparing prints side by side, when the viewing size is small that to invest in MFD is for personal reasons not sound economical ones. By all means buy what is enjoyable for you, but the rest of us should not feel like idiots because we supposedly can't see what MFD offers. How long has the p65+ been out now that everyone just has to have?
I would buy MFD for myself if the price where cheaper. There are several things about the experience that I would personally enjoy. But there is no way I would buy outdated MFD tech right now for business reasons. And I don't understand (actually I do) how several MFD owners here are so emotional about their equipment as to steer new users into the same purchasing decision that you have made without spelling out the real differences.
-
Pentax finally will ship the 645D camera... they announce an "agressive price"... Let's see what happens:
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...08-03/07/p645d/ (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-03/07/p645d/)
.
Hoping it has specs as their K-7 DSLR:
- DNG RAW option
- shake reduction in-body ( what a coup, IF )
- 3" TFT LCD with 921K dots
I'd consider it vs. Canon/Nikon DSLRs
-
This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".
http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html (http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html)
Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.
It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.
-
¿Why do they not discount the lower res versions and continue to sell them? a 22Mpx back and an old Sinar is useful kit
Who do you mean by they (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38355) ?
I was thinking mostly about Hasselblad, (who, I believe now make nothing lower -res than 39), but MF manufacturers in general.
-
I think its really hard to do intimate portraits like that. You have to show a certain tenderness to the subjects who are generally from a different class, think differently, consume differently. Its hard to connect. Katy Grannon's work is great. Alec Soth's Niagra has the same quality, a tenderness towards the subjects that too easily could have slipped into mocking snarky waste. This is different from Paolo Riversi's "Studio", which is raw 8x10 portraiture. Studio is mind blowing, so raw. The nudes are shocking in their honesty. Blew me away. Paolo R has a differnt subject, young Parisians, to whom he probably has something in common.
That is a long winded way of saying I agree, its all about the image ink on paper, which is only valuable if it represents a good idea.
This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".
http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html (http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html)
Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.
It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.
-
Even if the 35mm sensor had 100 MP, it still would not put out the same image as the larger format.
A 24 * 36mm 40 Mpx sensor would have 4.65µ pixels... which would be possible without getting tooo close to the wavelength of light, which, I believe is .4µ to .7µ. At this size the spill to adjacent pixels caused by the wavelength would reduce or eliminate moire, so you could get away without an AA filter.
A 24 * 36mm 100 Mpx sensor would have 2.9µ pixels, so you would not get the full value of the pixel count, even if you had lenses good enough.
-
As long as the images pop up on a large screen after they are taken, whatever is tethered or via card, everybody is normally amazed... if the photos are good enough to amaze.
A 2 Mpx HD TV picture looks about as good as a 20 Mpx DSLR (with AA) picture.
If they ever make 60 Mpx screens, clients will be even more amazed by 60 Mpx pictures... but now they see a 2 Mpx or so screen, and think that that is as good as it gets!
-
It happens that it may not be possible or worth using it above f5,6/f8 because of diffraction.
And that apply to any of the 35mm dslr makers.
And that need for f/5.6 or f/8 would be no disadvantage relative to medium format controlling diffraction at about one stop higher for equal pixel count.
At equal pixel count in different formats, the f-stop needed to limit loss of resolution to diffraction scales in proportion to pixel size and thus to format size, and the focal length used to get the same FOV scales in the same proportion, and the combined effect of scaling f-stop and focal length is that the circles of confusion in the focal plane scale in the same proportion as pixel size and image size. So the "per pixel OOF" effects are the same: when the equal pixel count images are viewed at equal size (equal PPI), the OOF effects and the diffraction effects are both equal.
The only differences are
1. The smaller format can get the same shutter speed at a lower ISO speed.
2. If the f-stop needed gets too small, aberrations are worse for the smaller format.
f/5.6 is fine for aberration control with the good 35mm format lenses that one would want to use with such a high res. sensor, and experiments show that diffraction is not an issue until pixel pitch is smaller than f-stop by a factor of about 1.4 to 2. That allows 35mm to use f/5.6 down to about 4 to 2.8 micron pixels, or 50MP to 100MP.
So if I wanted more than 100MP, I might be forced to consider a format larger than 35mm to avoid this diffraction/aberration/resolution problem. But at 100MP+, controlling diffraction would force very shallow DOF when the images are displayed big enough and viewed closely enough to show off all that detail, and then Dick Roadnight is right: view camera motions would probably be needed a lot of the time.
-
I was thinking mostly about Hasselblad, (who, I believe now make nothing lower -res than 39), but MF manufacturers in general.
But every other current DMF maker except Hasselbad offers a 22MP, 36x48mm option ... meaning just Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya!
It comes down to the fact that only one sensor suitable for MF cameras is still made with 9 micron cell size: the 22MP, 36x48mm from Dalsa that Leaf still uses, for example in the new Aptus-II 5 back. Kodak uses only 6.8 micron and the new 6 micron cell size in its recent MF sensors. Hasselblad is unlikely to shift from Kodak to Dalsa just for an entry level model like that, even though it has been forced to Dalsa for the new high end, almost full 645 sized sensor of the H4D-60.
By the way, Hasselblad still offers 31MP ... in its 44x33mm "entry level" model, the H3DII-31.
-
You have spent a great deal of money and have spent a great deal of time looking at pixels at 100% and are now unable to detach yourself emotionally from the output.
you, I think, are assuming a lot here. This argument could also have been used against richard avedon shooting simple portraits on white with an 8x10 and a team of assistants when he had a perfectly good rolleiflex sitting in his camera closet.
I am trying to help you to understand how at smaller viewing sizes than 16x24 it could be possible for some of us to have an enjoyable 35mm experience. How? The cameras work without frustration, the customer is happy, and we have not spent $40K + investing in MFD companies and their short-term improvements.
The quote I responded to was that it was simply all about price. I related my experiences relative to 35mm, but never suggested that the 35mm experience wasn't enjoyable..or could not be enjoyed by you or anyone else. I have recently produced two exhibitions of imagery shot on my 1ds...one travel, and the other some extreme low light work. Its the perfect tool for both. But, that said, the images from my hasselblad are in a completely different league. I shoot regularly for large format display work (fashion and portraiture)...where a 44x60 print designed for relatively close viewing is common. The 1ds is not sufficient in this situation. The skin tones provided by the hasselblad are a completely different animal from those provided by the 1ds, so again, as I am a people shooter, my feeling is that the hasselblad is a better tool. My argument was, and is...that it's more than just price.
But all that pixel goodness is lost, and even on you a week later comparing prints side by side, when the viewing size is small that to invest in MFD is for personal reasons not sound economical ones. By all means buy what is enjoyable for you, but the rest of us should not feel like idiots because we supposedly can't see what MFD offers. How long has the p65+ been out now that everyone just has to have?
I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference between 16x24" prints shot on my 1ds and my H3d. I definitely could at my standard printing sizes of 32x44 and 44x60. Even after a week, I'd tell you that the hasselblad was better.
It doesn't sound like you need MFD. Why would you feel like an idiot because I (and a "small group of talented others") do have a need for it?
I would buy MFD for myself if the price where cheaper. And I don't understand (actually I do) how several MFD owners here are so emotional about their equipment as to steer new users into the same purchasing decision that you have made without spelling out the real differences.
This is a forum for people who use, or have interest in medium format digital. I don't think that anything I said was an attempt to steer anyone towards buying anything. What I did do was try to reflect on Hasselblad's strategy for competing with 35mm, and to talk a little bit about the "real differences" between mfd and 35mm dslrs.
Now, as to the emotional thing...several times in the above quotes, you've suggested, I think, that somehow, having an emotional attachment to your camera...well...that this is a bad thing. Hmmm. I'll be proud to say that I do have an emotional attachment to my hasselblad. It produces images with a clarity and malleability that no other camera I own does. I'm also emotionally attached to my 5d markII for the beautiful video it produces. And I can remember being emotionally attached to the 165mm super angulon at the studio I worked at during college some 25 years ago. What a fucking great (and heavy) piece of glass. Cost about the same as a hasselblad kit if I remember right. And poloroid type 55....now the loss of that is something to cry over, my friend. When I bought my first Imacon 132c and Hasselblad H, it was the largest purchase of my life. It was a business decision, but it was also an emotional one, brought on by the realization that I could finalize my transition to digital with something that felt like film in the end result. I could have just hung on to film for another 10 years waiting (that would be still waiting) for canon and nikon to produce something that equaled what I could do with my mamiya 645 and some ektachrome. Like I said in my earlier post, I feel lucky to own a hasselblad. If I had never made that step, I'm not sure I would be as happy a photographer as I am today. (he says as he wipes away the H3d kool-aid moustache from his upper lip :~)
Look, one of my best buddies is an amazing musician who owns a guitar that is worth much more than his car. I think it's safe to say that he has an emotional attachment to it. I think it's also safe to say that just about everyone would think that's pretty cool, a guy with a guitar that costs more than his car, more than most of my cameras, who doesn't have much more in life...but damn, when he plays that guitar.....
Why is it a problem for you that I believe in my camera? You seem to believe in yours.
-
Barry,
LOL, great reply! I love good conversation. It seems MFD for some is for love (overlooking all current shortcomings with tech), for others it is the simple need for resolution.
-
This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".
It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.
Check out this story
http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/ (http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/)
A large image and unprocessed film archive from an unpublished and 'unknown' photographer was purchased at an estate auction.
The images are being rolled out on this blog
-
This has nothing to do with anything, but yesterday, I was in one of those fine art bookstores -- you know the kind -- and I stumbled on a copy of Katy Grannan's "Model Americans".
http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html (http://www.aperture.org/model-american-katy-grannan.html)
Stunning printing, and 8x10 portraiture at its best, motivated by an interesting view of the world. No wonder she's taking the country by storm. I put down the book after viewing it, and had to exhale, because I realized that the pictures were so intimate that I'd held my breath throughout the whole first viewing. That's when you know you've accomplished something.
It's about the idea, and in the end, it's about the image on paper. Not how you got there.
she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...
-
she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...
It's a very nice book. If it makes a difference to your opinion it was shot many years back and on 4x5.
As for taking the country by storm, it may be a matter of perspective. I was actually having a conversation the other day and we wondered what happened to her recently (not just her, but she was mentioned among photogs we respected but weren't sure how their careers were doing).
-
she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...
I don't like her work at all. Just nothing that I would be interested in.
-
she's on digital hasselblad now.
so...
The importance of which is . . . ?
-
It's a very nice book. If it makes a difference to your opinion it was shot many years back and on 4x5.
As for taking the country by storm, it may be a matter of perspective. I was actually having a conversation the other day and we wondered what happened to her recently (not just her, but she was mentioned among photogs we respected but weren't sure how their careers were doing).
The American art world stopped being, primarily, about art in the mid 1980's. Like lots of things in the states, the dealers and middlemen, the nouveau riche collectors, the investors started to drive the market. The more money in the system, the worse it gets, so with every speculative bubble, there is a surge in the market. That is why, since the dot com boom, then the real estate bubble, the gallerists and dealers would try and sell anything that had a smiling bullshit artist (pun) attached, who would be good with buyers, knew which fork to use when eating lobster, carries an Hermes address book and wears sharp suits. Lost in this surge of crap were real artists like Katy G. They rose, then faded as the business side lost interest, and their money. The photo market suffered a real bubble as it displaced painting as the art form of choice, mainly because its all figurative. Painters were displaced, and many good ones were passed over. Remember Sicily Brown? She took the art world by storm in the late 90's, then was displaced by photography as the "it" medium.
All of my fine art friends moved to Europe, because its not boom and bust. Its a longer healthier career. Nan Golden would be dead if she still lived in the US.
-
Cecily is with Gagosian and had a big show just last year. She's doing better than ok.
-
Cecily is with Gagosian and had a big show just last year. She's doing better than ok.
Really? Last year? That is really good to hear. I guess I've been too busy to look at my mail, or read Time Out. That's what happens when you have kids and work too much. The last work of hers that I saw were the abstract landscapes, which were OK. Her sex paintings were really incredible, back in 2000, 2001.
-
Really? Last year? That is really good to hear. I guess I've been too busy to look at my mail, or read Time Out. That's what happens when you have kids and work too much. The last work of hers that I saw were the abstract landscapes, which were OK. Her sex paintings were really incredible, back in 2000, 2001.
Yep. Excellent painter, good person, and a smart cookie. She is one artist who won't fade away.
ok, back to the topic ....
-
Yep. Excellent painter, good person, and a smart cookie. She is one artist who won't fade away.
ok, back to the topic ....
Just curious, does she still work in NYC or is she back in the UK?
Thanks,