Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on March 10, 2009, 04:51:00 pm
-
I printed a full-body outdoors portrait today from my D3x.
A very good poster 44" print from a *crop* of a Jpeg @ 1600 ISO.
Zero processing. Just retouched a few pimples.
Every dSLR will be able to do this in two years.
The D700x will be able to do this for $2K in 3 months.
This is ridiculous. I wouldn't buy shares in any MF manufacturer.
Edmund
-
It seems that all you do lately is post about your Nikon. This is a MF forum!
-
I printed a full-body outdoors portrait today from my D3x.
A very good poster 44" print from a *crop* of a Jpeg @ 1600 ISO.
Zero processing. Just retouched a few pimples.
Every dSLR will be able to do this in two years.
The D700x will be able to do this for $2K in 3 months.
This is ridiculous. I wouldn't buy shares in any MF manufacturer.
Edmund
Most portraiture never has pushed the envelope on detail with digital capture. I've always been able to go larger when printing portraits from my cameras than if printing my other types of images - back to the days of the Kodak 560.
I quit using my P45/Hasselblad for portraiture when I bought the 1DsMark3. But i rarely use my 1DsMark3 for landscape work ... the difference can get pretty apparent when printing large prints.
Interesting you think it is dead ... the p65 is backordered months out (one of which is mine). I think there will always be a niche for MF. the 1DsMk3 was a big jump, and perhaps the D3x is marginally better, but there are circumstances where neither will perform anywhere close to a good MF system. Perhaps you don't do that kind of work or make prints which are that large, but some of us do.
-
Most portraiture never has pushed the envelope on detail with digital capture. I've always been able to go larger when printing portraits from my cameras than if printing my other types of images - back to the days of the Kodak 560.
I quit using my P45/Hasselblad for portraiture when I bought the 1DsMark3. But i rarely use my 1DsMark3 for landscape work ... the difference can get pretty apparent when printing large prints.
Interesting you think it is dead ... the p65 is backordered months out (one of which is mine). I think there will always be a niche for MF. the 1DsMk3 was a big jump, and perhaps the D3x is marginally better, but there are circumstances where neither will perform anywhere close to a good MF system. Perhaps you don't do that kind of work or make prints which are that large, but some of us do.
I'm not saying MF is dead; what I'm saying is that it's getting punished pretty badly. One of the strange novelties is the resurgence of Jpeg. I couldn't have done this with my 1DsII, the in-camera processing wasn't good enough. One thing is sure: Nailing the image during the shot makes one feel much better when viewing it
Edmund
Edmund
-
No, but you are saying "How long to live?"
Thierry
I'm not saying MF is dead
Edmund
-
Go shoot with a P65+ then tell me what you think.
Michael
-
Go shoot weith a P65+ then tell me what you think.
Michael
Sure. I'll lend you my D3x for a couple of days, you lend me the P65. I'll even pay my airfare to where you live.
Deal ?
Edmund
-
eronald
What is the sharpest f.:stop before diffraction begins to degrade the image? f. 6 ?
ps. is someone going to do a SHOOTOUT with this two cameras? just tell me which corral and when. :-)
Sure. I'll lend you my D3x for a couple of days, you lend me the P65. I'll even pay my airfare to where you live.
Deal ?
Edmund
-
Here we go again.. *sigh*
(http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg)
-
The flaw in the logic is that somehow Medium Format Digital companies will cease their development, lie down, and cease moving forward while 'other' 35mm digital companies (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc) will continue at a wicked pace.
Technology will continue to move forward as it has...forever. In two years there will probably be 35mm-equivalent digital cameras that can produce incredible images (compared to today). And there will probably be bigger sensors (medium format or larger) that produce ever more incredible images than those And then there will be all the other newer formats, cross-platforms (Red, etc).
Amazing, this thing called progress...yawn. To assume that it only applies to Nikon is a little bold, don't you think?
I'm curious however, how do you detach the digital sensor from that new-fangled D3x and attach it to your Horseman? I just wish Nikon knew how to innovate.
-
Sure. I'll lend you my D3x for a couple of days, you lend me the P65. I'll even pay my airfare to where you live.
Deal ?
Edmund
Deal. I live in Toronto. May would be good.
Michael
-
Competition is good. Makes you wake up and pay attention and reevaluate priorities. A lot of people have been writing for a long time of many things they wanted to see in future digital backs
- larger, better displays all around;
- maybe CMOS sensors with in-LCD live view without having to tether...
- greater dynamic range
- dual CF slot with more flexible storage options, like on the D3X
- better prices
- more AF points with wider spacing in the viewfinder (ok, this is a camera enhancement)
And I'm sure there are many others who can think of many more things they'd like to see in their digital backs. I foresee a further consolidation in the medium format players maybe but I feel the market will continue. There are many who prefer it for one reason or another. Cameras like the D3X should make them accelerate the pace.
-
It has always seemed to me that MFDB users pay a huge premium for a relatively marginal increase in image quality, compared with 35mm FF format. What's even worse is that such increased image quality, more often than not, seems to get lost in the image processing chain from RAW image to magaine cover.
I accept that those who are printing from 3ft and 4ft wide printers will very much appreciate the extra detail that's obtainable from a single P65 shot. However, I wonder how often a single shot is mandatory to achieve the desired result.
I find it interesting that there's a 'botton up' movement currently taking place in camera development. Some of the latest P&S releases, such as the Ricoh CX1 and Fuji F200EXR, have very remarkable features to improve DR and SNR. If DSLRs were to adopt such technology, it might be game, set and match for the MFDB.
-
It has always seemed to me that MFDB users pay a huge premium for a relatively marginal increase in image quality, compared with 35mm FF format. What's even worse is that such increased image quality, more often than not, seems to get lost in the image processing chain from RAW image to magaine cover.
Not sure what your experience is, but MFDB is not "marginally" better. Sure the D3x and 5DMk2 have made significant gains but they still don't equal the previous generation MF 39mp backs. Of course, the new MFDB's in the 59mp range even more capable when capturing detail, and MFDB have other advantages (no AA filter).
I accept that those who are printing from 3ft and 4ft wide printers will very much appreciate the extra detail that's obtainable from a single P65 shot. However, I wonder how often a single shot is mandatory to achieve the desired result.
I guess you mean why not just stitch multiple images? Sure that works some of the time, but it's a pain, and personally I'd rather spend my time shooting various images, including bracketing for possible HDR, than spend 10 minutes to capture the detail and then have to stitch it together. If you can't afford MFDB or don't have it with you, it's a good technique for some subject matter, but it can't replace it all of the time. Heck, I stitch P45+ captures fairly often.
I find it interesting that there's a 'botton up' movement currently taking place in camera development. Some of the latest P&S releases, such as the Ricoh CX1 and Fuji F200EXR, have very remarkable features to improve DR and SNR. If DSLRs were to adopt such technology, it might be game, set and match for the MFDB.
Perhaps the real motivation lies elsewhere. The manufacturers require constant improvement to drive sales. Develop a G10 so all those with G9's want to upgrade ... but the new camera has to have something about it which makes it better. At this point, it is getting pretty tough to cram more pixels into the very small sensors and it's pretty obvious those buying those cameras aren't primarily interested in 40x60" prints. But they still have to improve the camera, so they are adding more features (video seems to be the newest focus) and improved image quality with the pixels they have.
-
Deal. I live in Toronto. May would be good.
Michael
Wow, can I play too?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The flaw in the logic is that somehow Medium Format Digital companies will cease their development, lie down, and cease moving forward while 'other' 35mm digital companies (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc) will continue at a wicked pace.
No intend to run down MF, but what drives the pace of progress is investements, and the ability to invest is proportional to the money you make...
The gap between an A900/5DII and a P65+ on an A2 print is much smaller than the gap 5 years ago between a 1ds and P25. Much smaller.
Yet the price gap has actually increase significantly, going from 3 fold to 13 fold, from 17.000 US$ to 36.000 US$...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"It has always seemed to me that MFDB users pay a huge premium for a relatively marginal increase in image quality, compared with 35mm FF format. What's even worse is that such increased image quality, more often than not, seems to get lost in the image processing chain from RAW image to magaine cover."
Not sure what your experience is, but MFDB is not "marginally" better. Sure the D3x and 5DMk2 have made significant gains but they still don't equal the previous generation MF 39mp backs. Of course, the new MFDB's in the 59mp range even more capable when capturing detail, and MFDB have other advantages (no AA filter).
I'm with Ray on this one. By the time the 'same' image hits the page/cover via a four colour press it makes no difference if it was shot on 35FF or MF. Again, as Ray said, a different kettle of fish if the image is being output to a seriously wide format printer.
-
Deal. I live in Toronto. May would be good.
Michael
Ok, I think I can do May. I'll get in touch for dates.
Edmund
-
No intend to run down MF, but what drives the pace of progress is investements, and the ability to invest is proportional to the money you make...
The gap between an A900/5DII and a P65+ on an A2 print is much smaller than the gap 5 years ago between a 1ds and P25. Much smaller.
Yet the price gap has actually increase significantly, going from 3 fold to 13 fold, from 17.000 US$ to 36.000 US$...
Cheers,
Bernard
i seriously doubt this. ( btw. at the time of the 1ds existed the kodak slr, which gave you similar quality as the leica r9 3 years later )
how big is the difference today depends on the print size and much on the lenses you use in front of your back.
no 35mm lens comes close to the wideangles rodenstock and schneider are making. this was the biggest problem of 35mm ff systems in the past and still it is.
its not all about the sensors ....
-
Not sure what your experience is, but MFDB is not "marginally" better. Sure the D3x and 5DMk2 have made significant gains but they still don't equal the previous generation MF 39mp backs. Of course, the new MFDB's in the 59mp range even more capable when capturing detail, and MFDB have other advantages (no AA filter).
There's no doubt that the larger sensor can accommodate a greater number of pixels. However, if you can get the quality that you need from a more compact, lighter and more affordable box, then what's the point?
What I had in mind for a DSLR of the future, is a full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 50D and the internal processing of the Ricoh CX1. That would make it a 39mp FF sensor with the ability to bracket two different exposures and process them in-camera to produce a DR of about 15 stops (the Ricoh CX1 claims 12 stops).
For those concerned about their lenses not being sharp enough at F8 for a 39mp 35mm format, the camera would also be able to autobracket focussing distance when the lens is used at its sharpest aperture (say F5.6) to produce a DoF normally only possible at F32, but razor sharp.
How does that grab you?
Here's the dpreview link to the Ricoh CX1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022002ricohinterview.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022002ricohinterview.asp)
-
Ok, I think I can do May. I'll get in touch for dates.
Edmund, why don't you just go on one of Michael's trips, like the Antarctica trips? I am sure you would get the opportunity there too, and there would lots of subject matter to try it out on.
-
Edmund.
If I was you I will sale the D3x.
I pay $200.00 for the camera, and I print the photo 11.5 x 17.4
So get your money back in run.
BTW, Nice looking kids,
-
Go shoot with a P65+ then tell me what you think.
Michael
I have and I WANT one. LOL
-
I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs. The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range. Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc. in my opinion are not good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm. I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales. Eleanor
I printed a full-body outdoors portrait today from my D3x.
A very good poster 44" print from a *crop* of a Jpeg @ 1600 ISO.
Zero processing. Just retouched a few pimples.
Every dSLR will be able to do this in two years.
The D700x will be able to do this for $2K in 3 months.
This is ridiculous. I wouldn't buy shares in any MF manufacturer.
Edmund
-
I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs. The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range. Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc. in my opinion are not good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm. I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales. Eleanor
Natural light architecture can have a very wide dynamic range.
(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4141/singler.jpg)
(http://fc66.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/065/e/3/e3b07eddbce7c0619457854e8772d40f.jpg)
and there can be a lot of high frequency detail in architecture
(http://fc86.deviantart.com/fs41/f/2009/037/7/2/725c9a38ffd8405a96384a624b96f11d.jpg)
I know these aren't MFDB shots but just trying to show that architecture can be a pretty good test for comparing cameras
-
First of all, what we have now is residual of the film era when you had to design cameras that would use a given film size. So Nikon and Canon may soon decide to use a larger sensor -- exactly what is happening with Leica and the S2--, so it is about companies and what the want to do. Leica is going larger than 35mm for a reason. That same reason could very well apply to Nikon.
Following the argument, I think that it would be difficult to predict that the entire development of digital capture would first fall back --difficult first on its own-- and then settle in precisely the format established by Leica in the start of last century.
Remember when Nikon, not so long ago, stated that DX is all you need and all we will produce?
At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.
There's no doubt that the larger sensor can accommodate a greater number of pixels. However, if you can get the quality that you need from a more compact, lighter and more affordable box, then what's the point?
What I had in mind for a DSLR of the future, is a full frame 35mm sensor with the pixel density of the 50D and the internal processing of the Ricoh CX1. That would make it a 39mp FF sensor with the ability to bracket two different exposures and process them in-camera to produce a DR of about 15 stops (the Ricoh CX1 claims 12 stops).
For those concerned about their lenses not being sharp enough at F8 for a 39mp 35mm format, the camera would also be able to autobracket focussing distance when the lens is used at its sharpest aperture (say F5.6) to produce a DoF normally only possible at F32, but razor sharp.
How does that grab you?
Here's the dpreview link to the Ricoh CX1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022002ricohinterview.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09022002ricohinterview.asp)
-
Leica is going larger than 35mm for a reason. That same reason could very well apply to Nikon.
I think that Leica has a reason that does not apply to Canon nor Nikon. Leica needs a completely new lens system, with AF, electronic lens-body coupling, and such. At that point, it can be worth making clean break with old lenses, choosing a new format and lens mount, as Olympus did with Four Thirds, and as Leica did when it invented 35mm film cameras. (Both went for smaller formats in those cases though.)
Canon and Nikon on the other hand have a huge installed base of good modern 35mm lenses, and many such lens designs in production, which give them far more incentive to build on that lens system rather than divert investment into a far, far smaller market sector.
It is worth noting that all major makers of AF 35mm film SLR lenses, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Konica-Minolta, have developed all of their DSLR's to have backward compatibility with those lenses, while Olympus and Leica (and now Panasonic and Samsung) have chosen more radical routes with less or no lens backward compatibility.
Aside: I wonder if the "R system successor" hinted at by Leica will be 35mm film format (24x36mm), "M8" format (18x27mm), 4/3" format, or something else.
Remember when Nikon, not so long ago, stated that DX is all you need and all we will produce?
At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.
Nikon never said that DX was all it would ever produce or all that anyone would ever need; it was far cagier, talking about "no current plans" for 35mm format while also saying that it was keeping an eye on the technology.
And why do people think that one alleged misjudgment by one usually anonymous person is much of a reason to disregard any prediction that they do not like? Try at least judging the evidence and arguments offered for the predictions!
-
I will never understand why Phase One and other companies use portraits, fashion, shiny cars, etc to market their backs. The real test of medium format digital is in subject matter such as landscapes, where there is a lot of high frequency detail (micro detail) and wide dynamic range. Studio shots, portraits, cars, architecture, etc. in my opinion are not good ways to show what medium format is really capable of as compared to 35mm. I suppose the reasoning for their marketing strategies is that most of their sales go to pros that shoot these subjects for high end commercial sales. Eleanor
Eleanor,
Go Girl!--you hit the nail right on the head-- My experiences with all the MF Digital backs past and current, Phase /Leaf/ Imacon/Hasselblad etc, is show any of them
massed landscape Greens/ Reds/Yellows in Foliage/etc and they all turn to mush.
Luvvv ya Work by the way!
DesW
-
Friend of mine in Germany was given a company BMW (small one), he lives 110Km from work, and now commutes at 200 Km/h to work and back every day on the Autobahn. I'm really not sure your average driver makes a very good 200 Km/h driver.
Edmund
Considering how many crazy people are on the roads these days, maybe they were right. Teenagers, soccer moms, really old drivers and delivery people - those are the "mad" drivers I see daily.
BTW, Eleanor, what happens is that the architecture guys need long exposures often, and the car guys have huge DR issues (specular reflections); the dSLRs handle used to handle both of these badly so digital backs got those markets.
-
At the beginning of the auto industry revolution someone -don't remember where I read it-- said that humans can't go faster than 50 m/h before they go mad or something like that.
Yeah, I remember that. I thought it was 60 mph, but whatever. They simply weren't pushing top speed in the early days, because they thought that "the force of the wind at that speed would surely crush you!"
-
I suppose then that it was 60 mph, I was just trying to remember, and it is good that someone else saw it. I think that it is probably a good example of fast change brought by technology and how difficult it is to predict what will it be like at the end. We definitively passed the 60 mph mark with our sanity intact, but, even if we can make cars that go a lot faster, we settled in ones that travel at a nice, fast, safe, comfortable and -this is new- affordable way.
It will probably happen with cameras. I have a D300 system (DX Nikon) and a P25 645 (almost FF) and feel that it is a sufficient for my photography needs.
Of course I see what the neighbors have in new in their garages -some have Macmantions with 3 SUV's and Corvettes-.
I know that the car magazines are for showing new and improve cars, and same here with new models and to talk about how we can't wait for entire new systems that have urgently needed features... and for us to read about them as car/camera enthusiasts...
... sorry, I mean I do want the P65
Yeah, I remember that. I thought it was 60 mph, but whatever. They simply weren't pushing top speed in the early days, because they thought that "the force of the wind at that speed would surely crush you!"
-
edit