with the rumors of a 54 mp nikon d4x and the death of medium format (ha ha), at what point do you reach in either dslr or medium format, the ability of the lens not being able to resolve fully for the large mp sensor. the new zeiss lens for dslr is said to resolve about 31 mp and these lenses are very expensive. has the race to the top in the mp race become a marketing game instead of really being a benefit to the photographer.
With Medium Format Digital there are just more camera and lens options. You can build a system to suit your needs. With the DSLR system, specially Nikon DSLRs (which have a lens mount that has a lot of limitations to adapt lenses to it) you are limited to what Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss/Rokinon/Tamron/Tokina have to offer. I am sure very few lenses will be up to the task (54.6 MP D4X) and those that are will be best at a very limited range of apertures (diffraction). Just like it's the case with the smaller formats.
With Medium Format Digital there are just more camera and lens options.
MFD is stagnating as the demand is not there anymore.
Ken,
Why would the range of apertures not adversely affected by diffraction for a 54.6MP D4x be any different to that from a 60MP IQ260? The latter may have larger pixels but the larger sensor requires the lens to be stopped down further for equal DOF. My understanding is that its effectively all the same but that if anything, the larger format will exhibit slightly greater diffraction than the smaller when DOF is equal. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Simon,
I believe him. The moneyed amatuer base will buy, regardless of pixel pitch, noise anything you would worry about, because they buy eqipment for the enjoyment.
A small dealer I know that did specialize in pro gear now sells 8o% to the advanced amateur and more 6 grand nikon lenses than you can count, but never to a professional.
When the d3x came out they we're sellig them by the dozens per week and not one to a pro.
So yea, between the pro market, the amateur market and the repro market, I would think phase sales are up and growing.
BC
With the Rodenstock HR lenses on the Arca I get awesome sharpness in the corners. The difference to what I got with the Nikon D800E I tested and the best Nikon and Zeiss glass at optimum apertures was staggering.
The pixel pitch of the 60mp PhaseOne (dalsa) sensor is similar to what you get in 20-24mp Full Frame DSLRs. Also, since I use the back primarily in an Arca Swiss RM3Di (tech camera) I use tilt to control what is in focus in the landscape situations I mostly use the camera in. I do not use the aperture for that. I usually leave it at f8 most of the time. I also use shift and rise/fall (individually or combined) to either stitch or compose the image as I wish while maintaining the camera level. I work it like a large format camera and works great. I can get perfect focus from the foot of the tripod to infinity if I wish without changing the aperture and in a single file/exposure.
A few folks with the D800/E use focus stacking to get that but that requires multiple images and extensive post production and in some instances, like when shooting the ocean/waves, it is not always a viable solution.
Also, edge to edge resolution is always tough to achieve in wide angles on the D800E and the Sony A7R, read THIS (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog) article written by Roger Cicala from LensRentals. Posted is a sample of his test results. You can see that corner resolution is not that great compared to the center (and that is with native mount lenses, the A7R with the adapter is even worse). With the Rodenstock HR lenses on the Arca I get awesome sharpness in the corners. The difference to what I got with the Nikon D800E I tested and the best Nikon and Zeiss glass at optimum apertures was staggering.
Our sales have been up every year since the great recession.
Not sure I would want to spend the money on a 54mp sensor only to crop it back to 36 due to only being able to use the center of the image.
with the rumors of a 54 mp nikon d4x and the death of medium format (ha ha), at what point do you reach in either dslr or medium format, the ability of the lens not being able to resolve fully for the large mp sensor. the new zeiss lens for dslr is said to resolve about 31 mp and these lenses are very expensive. has the race to the top in the mp race become a marketing game instead of really being a benefit to the photographer.
I own both a D800E and an IQ260.
Diffraction and lenses are the limiting factor on DSLR's. According to Lloyd Chambers testing with the D800E, diffraction starts at f8 and is well and truly underway at f11. Then.add the fact that the glass hasn't kept up with the demands of the high resolution sensors. Even some of the best Nikon glass is quite frankly disappointing in the corners compared to the Schneider Kreuznach lenses.
I can happily shoot the IQ260 at f11. I don't need to crop because my corners are comparatively sharp.
That is why I have gone medium format. The D800E is a very good camera but it is not in the same league as the IQ260. Even if a 54 Megapixel sensor were to be released in DSLR, the system will struggle to match medium format in terms of diffraction. Not to mention all the other advantages of medium format.
I'm afraid that small pixels will murder tech cam lens designs, for each new MFDB sensor generation the color cast has become worse and the manufacturers don't seem to care as they rather want users to use their SLR systems instead. The IQ260 was fortunately a break of this trend though.
I'm quite pessimistic. What probably will happen is that we'll see new sensors with smaller pixels and worse color cast, and therefore tech cam lenses is forced to become more and more similar to ordinary retrofocus lenses as required by 24x36mm CMOS sensors, tech cams will become more and more similar to an ordinary mirrorless (like Alpa FPS) and we come to a point when there's no longer any meaningful difference.
I think tech cam makers, Arca-Swiss, Alpa, Cambo, Sinar, Linhof should form a joint company and make their own backs and steer the development in a direction better for them. Maybe Leica can revitalize Sinar's line of backs and make it more than a tethered studio product.
Diffraction is a zero-sum game. With smaller formats you get diffraction earlier, but you don't need to stop down as much either as you can use shorter focal length and thus get more depth of field with larger apertures for the equivalent field of view. To get the same depth of field as with f/8 on your D800E you need to stop down to f/11-f/13 on your IQ260.
What I think can prove to be a problem with smaller formats in terms of resolution is the increased requirement on precision in optics. I think it's too early to say if the 135 is too small to be able to reach resolving power currently seen in medium format due to precision issues in manufacturing, time will tell.
Another issue is that wide angles need to be strong retrofocus due to the strong color casts of the current CMOS sensors, and those retrofocus lenses need to be extremely complicated heavy and costly designs (see Rodenstock 32mm tech cam lens, it would be even worse than that) to resolve well over the whole frame, and while it may be technically possible to make, the market for a 2 kg $6000 wide angle lens would be too small for the manufacturers to care making one, when you can make something almost but not quite as good for a third of the price. However, the new Zeiss Otus lens is not exactly cheap or light, so maybe I'm wrong and we'll actually see wides that have these extreme designs.
Medium format did not before require strong retrofocus and wide aperture lenses, that's why we can find exceptional performance in tech cam lenses with relatively simple and inexpensive designs. This segment is about to die though, as MFDB makers don't seem to prioritize low color cast, and retrofocus lenses are more user-friendly in terms of live view (less vignetting and larger focusing aperture).
I just purchased a CFV-50 back for my 'old' 501CM and the files blow away what I get with my Nikon D800E with top grade Zeiss glass and very careful technique.
Plus, I am rediscovering the joy of looking down the chimney finder and seeing my image on a huge, glorious 6cm square focus screen.
In addition, my newer Hasselblad lenses can resolve 8 point type at 20' from center to corner. None of my 35mm lenses are this good.
Because you don't use the corners of the Hasselblad lenses with the CFV-50, you get the best part of each lens.
Highly recommend this route for medium format digital.
if nikon comes out with a d4x and 54 mp sensor and the photographer uses the new zeiss otus lenses, with an 85mm f1.4 lens coming in 2014 to go with the 55mm f1.4 otus, is the image quality of the d800/e now stepping on the toes of medium format digital up to about a 30 to 40mp. even though the new zeiss lenses are expensive, a refurbished phase one p45+ bundle is around $16,000 which gets you back, body and one lens. for that price you could get the new hypothetical d4x at 54mp (questamated price going around the web $8-9,000) plus 2 of these new lenses for about the same price, and the price of new mfdb, plus equipment would set you back a few years mortgage. i think hasselblad, before they made the stupid decision to discontinue the v line, had almost the right idea on pricing for the cfv-39 and cfv-50, for the serious amateur.
Fair warning. Images were shot months apart...
I'll bite. What is this "Very, very wrongness" that you speak of?
Hi,
One is with a long lens with focus on the foreground leaves the other with a shorter lens with pretty much everything in focus. You could as well process the Nikon image in C1, as C1 one has a more aggressive sharpening. Or you could try amount=45, radius=0.7 detail=100 in LR, that works fine for me.
Best regards
Erik
i use to own the cfv-16, shot many times with the cfv-39 and large format film up to 8x20. imho an 8x20 contact print or any other contact print from an ultra large film format system is the tops. now there is a special look. the reason for the questions was, for many people like myself who enjoy photography for itself and not a business, the prices for mfdb's are way too expensive new and the value loss after purchase is worse than cars. i like to purchase new. there is something that i find special when i open new photographic equipment. also i am not talking about 50 or 60 or 80mp backs for the professional or the wealthy. af is not important to me because i use the hasselblad digital backs as well as roll film holders and sheet film on an arca swiss camera. with live view on dslr's for static objects it makes focusing that much easier for these old eyes. So yes i "know" the medium format look.
I'll bite.
What is this "Very, very wrongness" that you speak of?
Ban 'em all!
well, if people showed more participation in the image sharing threads and not just the measurebating ones, there would be a lot more to talk about.
I'd share more myself if it weren't for the aforementioned…
Thanks Geoff!
well, if people showed more participation in the image sharing threads and not just the measurebating ones, there would be a lot more to talk about.