Hi,
The discussion may turn about some issues:
- Who needs 100MP
- Does MFD give some specific advantages beyond physics? Is there an MFD magic?
Neither question is really easy to answer. Some posters would argue that 12, 24 or 37 MP are quite enough to any size print, at least with viewing distance taken into account. My experiments sort of indicated that viewpoint making some sense. I was not able to observe meaningful differences between say 24 MP 24x36 and 39 MP P45+ in A2-size prints without a loupe, at least regarding detail.
On the other hand, I may have observed a weak advantage of the P45+ over say the A7rII at longer viewing distances. Very clearly, would I put two 80x120 cm prints side by side I would not be able to observe the difference. Flipping small crops at short distance, maybe…
If you compare present generation Sony sensors, like the one in the IQ350 and the IQ3-100MP with Sony's present generation of sensors, MFD sensors have the advantage of size.
This thread on GetDPI gives some perspective:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59021-some-reflections-my-v-series-hasselblad-p45-kit.html MFD fans may claim that MFD sensors provide better colour, which may or may not be the case. There are obviously differences in colour rendition between my P45+ using C1 and my Sony A7rII using Lightroom. Question is how much of that is profiles and how much is sensor dependent. My choice is to use home generated profiles with both the P45+ and the Sonys. What I may find is that there may be a colour difference beyond WB (which plays a major role) and colour profiles. But some guys more knowledgeable than me say that colour rendition is 90% profiling and 10% hardware.
This thread covers some of that issue, with a lot of good input from knowledgeable folks on both sides:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59120-capture-one-lr6.htmlNow, smaller formats are getting better all the time. Canon has been revamping it's lens line for high res sensors for a long time and we now have some very nice lenses from Zeiss like the Otus, Milvus and Batis lens lines. So, question is if it is better to spend a set of great 24x36 lenses and a good 24x36mm camera or spend much more on an MFD system.
MFD-backs have often been used with technical cameras or optical bench devices, but modern sensors don't play that well with large format lenses designed for film as sensors don't like oblique beam angles.
Quite a few users have switched from MFD backs on bellow type cameras to smaller systems using MF or Canon lenses with a high MP-count 24x36 body.
The question is of course where 24x36 mm is bound. APS-C seems to stopped around 24 MP right now, that is about 50-55 MP on 24x36 mm. Rumors used to say 70-75 MP for next generation 24x36, it is a bit more than what I would expect for Photokina this year.
Personally, I am pretty sure I am reducing P45+ usage, the Sony system delivers what I need and has a lot of flexibility. Around 40 MP seems to be plenty for my kind of work, the area where I think smaller pixels are beneficial is the reduction of aliasing, that is fake detail any sampling system produces when system resolution is below input resolution. Calculations show that something like 2.5 micron sensors are optimal with Otus-class lenses.
I would say that the original question is a good one that any photographer on a budget needs to ask himself/herself and the answer may be different depending on needs.
Just to mention, I use two Contax RTS era Zeiss zooms, 28-85/3.3-4 and 35-135/3.3-4.5. Both these lenses deliver very good results on the Sony A7rII. The reason I use them that they have manual aperture control.
Best regards
Erik