Why Medium Format?

[Theodoros]

Noise?

I'm just glad that you finally realized that we have "all resolution we need" and explain to you that...

"There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for (the benefits of) larger pixels." 

If you disagree anywhere on the above, you may comment on where you disagree....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Technically, I would say that proper rendition requires that MTF at Nyquist is near zero.

Best regards
Erik

Noise?

I'm just glad that you finally realized that we have "all resolution we need" and explain to you that...

"There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for (the benefits of) larger pixels." 

If you disagree anywhere on the above, you may comment on where you disagree....

[Theodoros]

Hi,

Technically, I would say that proper rendition requires that MTF at Nyquist is near zero.

Best regards
Erik

That would be what theory suggests for maximum resolution, if and only if, pixels are free of artifacts... That would mean either a B&W sensor, or a "true" color sensor... and then it concerns resolution only, for which -may I remind you- "we already have all we need".... 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Theodoros,

This may be a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Best regards
Erik

That would be what theory suggests for maximum resolution, if and only if, pixels are free of artifacts... That would mean either a B&W sensor, or a "true" color sensor... and then it concerns resolution only, for which -may I remind you- "we already have all we need".... 

[Theodoros]

Hi Theodoros,

This may be a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Best regards
Erik

Actually it by no means is... what should be refreshing for you, is the fact that you was first taught in school... which is that "Theory is Physics and engineering is ...(well) engineering..."
In other words physics presumes that there is ideal behavior of the rest of the parameters involved, while in engineering, you have to take into account (after testing) the magnitude of non ideal behavior of the peripherals...

What all the above (proven and confirmed from engineers) means as far as sensors are concerned, is that no photon rays enter all pixels directly or in the same way as another pixel and there is no "Nyquist" limit that takes into account artifacts produced by interpolation or the presence of Bayer pattern or of micro lenses... If you know such a theory, you may as well present it to the sensor makers as to suggest to them the size of the pixels they should design for their sensors...

Providing a "link" of "links" that says nothing, doesn't make theory that presumes an ideal operation of the peripherals applicable to an enviroment full of "error creators" that are not taken into account...

[jng]

Here are the images that were selected by the panel: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

The images that the panel chose for exhibition in your office are lovely. I particularly like the light and atmosphere that you've captured in the 5th photo in the series.

Best regards,

John

[ErikKaffehr]

John,

Thanks for the kind words.

The image you mention was shot in early morning light on Hans Kruse's Dolomites West 2014 workshop.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

The images that the panel chose for exhibition in your office are lovely. I particularly like the light and atmosphere that you've captured in the 5th photo in the series.

Best regards,

John

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It was a bit interesting to follow the discussions of the panel. We used a very rational process in Lightroom, looked at each image and decided to keep or ignore. We ended up with eleven images.

Quite a few of my personal favourites falled away. With the P45+ images, both images chosen barely made it. With the other images it was much more affirmative. Why? I don't know, but a selection like this is not just about the image but also about context.

Viewing the images on in a conference room made no justice to vertically cropped images.

We have a lot of wall space and need a lot of images, so this selection is just a starting point. We didn't discuss technical quality at all.

There was considerable interest for grouping smaller prints

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.

Camera	Proposed	Accepted	Percentage
24 MP full frame	46	5	11%
42 MP full frame	25	4	16%
P45+	25	2	8%
APS-C	8	0	0%

This was a screen based evaluation, so pictures were selected on looks and not image quality and the statistics are not great. Doesn't proof anything, of course, but also sort of indicates that MFD images don't stand out from others.

All images were shot on tripod.

The proposed images are here:

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Spice/

Best regards
Erik