Topic: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras (Read 14696 times)

Rob C · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2016, 03:50:52 pm »

Which is what I have always believed: photography shouldn't be confused with numbers. It's basically an art with industrial/commercial possibilities best exploited on the basis of photographer experience and not catalogues, websites and Internet pundits.

I grew up, photographically speaking, surrounded by 4x5 and upwards and printing from same; when I went solo I used nothing other than 135 and 120 film formats. That was a choice based on what I wanted to do and where I wanted to take myself in life. Had I other photographic destinations in mind, I'd have gone to different formats.

The only camera logic that means squat is the visceral one that you have, and that you need to learn to trust.

Rob

eronald · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2016, 06:55:14 pm »

Rob, Nice pic and interesting advice.
Don't worry, I got my money's worth

I'm shooting handheld @ 1600 or 3200 ISO. Never really use a tripod except for video.

Edmund

Quote from: Rob C on October 02, 2016, 05:49:42 am

Edmund, a beautiful focal length; mine's Nikkor 500, for what that matters, go and play:

Rob

P.S. On a Gitzo, just to frame, but there's absolutely no need to focus on any particular spot to make it look sharp - unless you have to - and here I intentionally avoided getting anything but the "circles" reasonably crisp. It's a dream-weaver's lens; if you need long and sharp follow Hans Feurer's way instead, and not Eddie Kohli's! Eddie and the late Arnaud de Rosnay built careers on mirror optics; Arnaud has a shot taken in the Bahamas, I think, which is the best 500 mirror shot I've ever seen: dark b/ground, incredibly silver circles and amazing clothes and model (Marisa Berenson?)... yep, dream-weaver stuff. All fucking lost to bigger and better and sharper until it kills, or you scream: gimme a break, enough crisp already, let's have some heart and soul, every Mrs Head's son Richard can do crisp!

eronald · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2016, 08:34:01 pm »

Rob,

Here's a tech demo.
Below a "real" shot.

Edmund

eronald · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2016, 08:44:01 pm »

This one still needs some work ...

I like the grainy old-style 35mm look - the very opposite of multi-mega-pixel mf-itis.

Edmund

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2016, 12:54:37 am »

Hi,

I would suggest that the Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX start something new, cameras designed for and around the 44x33 mm sensor size. Before that, MFD systems were more built for the full frame 645 and lenses were optimised for the larger format, making them expensive and large.

The Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX are optimised for the 44x33 mm size. The lenses are designed for that size of sensor.

Fuji talks about the lenses being designed for 100 MP, Hasselblad shows MTF graphs that are impressive. I would assume that next generation sensors will go to 75-100 MP.

These cameras are affordable - when compared to "top priced" 24x36 mm systems like "pro DSLRs" or Leica SL, offering much better image quality but far less capabilities of fast AF and frames per second.

Comparing with high resolution 24x36 mm systems is a different game. Assuming similar lens technology the sensor diagonal of the the 44x33 mm sensor is 27% larger which would give something like 27 % advantage in magnification. The 68% larger sensor surface would give a 29 % advantage in SNR. Or, you could say that 168 ISO delivers same signal/noise as 100 ISO on a 24x36 mm sensor.

So, you are paying 3X the price for something like 28% improvement of image quality. Worthwhile? Maybe. The lenses will be seriously good, will they be as good as the Otus? We don't know. The Otuses correct axial chroma fully, do the new Hassy and Fuji lenses do that, too? Due to medium apertures those lenses will be less challenged.

With the Fuji GFX it will be possible to use third party lenses. That is not the case with the X1D as it has no focal plane shutter. There is no macro or zoom lens announced yet for the X1D yet, as far as I know.

The way I see it, the new systems are very interesting. Personally I think there is plenty life in smaller formats. I have an admittedly old Hasselblad V/P45+ combo that is going into retirement (obsolescence) so I am no longer bitten by the MFD bug.

Best regards
Erik

Rob C · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2016, 04:20:29 am »

Quote from: eronald on October 02, 2016, 06:55:14 pm

Rob, Nice pic and interesting advice.
Don't worry, I got my money's worth
I'm shooting handheld @ 1600 or 3200 ISO. Never really use a tripod except for video.

Edmund

I am incapable of even framing with a hand-held 500mm mirror - even trying to frame with a hand-held 2.8/180mm is a challenge really a few klicks too far for me! Perhaps one needs those gunstock supports of olden days. Okay in olden days, but likely to get you shot by a nervous security guard today!

Yes, I also love the older, grainy look of images much of the time. Sharp and grainless is also very important for some product shots, of course, but I no longer do any of that work, so I chase romantic, either upbeat or down. Photography is the perfect fit for the polar options: it can do it all for each mood. Comforting...

Rob

eronald · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2016, 05:24:43 am »

Rob,

I think all the big lenses now have stabilisers built in so you can aim them without getting seasick ...
Some people have good eyesight, I have naturally stable hands.

Edmund

Quote from: Rob C on October 04, 2016, 04:20:29 am

I am incapable of even framing with a hand-held 500mm mirror - even trying to frame with a hand-held 2.8/180mm is a challenge really a few klicks too far for me! Perhaps one needs those gunstock supports of olden days. Okay in olden days, but likely to get you shot by a nervous security guard today!

Yes, I also love the older, grainy look of images much of the time. Sharp and grainless is also very important for some product shots, of course, but I no longer do any of that work, so I chase romantic, either upbeat or down. Photography is the perfect fit for the polar options: it can do it all for each mood. Comforting...

Rob

grilla · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2016, 01:14:05 am »

Thank goodness G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Being in my sixties I was fearful it had something else to do with being older.

Rob C · « **Reply #28 on:** October 11, 2016, 04:07:32 am »

Quote from: grilla on October 11, 2016, 01:14:05 am

Thank goodness G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Being in my sixties I was fearful it had something else to do with being older.

Young people like you should not even think like that!

Rob

Bo_Dez · « **Reply #29 on:** October 11, 2016, 07:04:55 am »

Not bye bye for me, but hello to new options. I agree we're living in exciting and interesting times for camera development but I'm certainly not going to buy anything new for a while to see how the dust settles and see how these systems develop and what lenses they make.

Generally, I love Medium Format and use it quite a lot but where I don't feel I've ever bonded with it is lenses. I love the Zeiss 110 Planar and the Contax 80 f2 and some of the Leica S lenses, but generally, for my preferences 135 lenses like the Zeiss Otus, the 135 apo-sonnar, Leica M lenses jhave particular qualities I like. It's quite frustrating because I need the quality of Medium Format files but generally I'm not keen on the Hasselblad HC lenses, and the Phase One lenses, though high quality I don't gel with so much either. if Phase dropped an 80mm f2, I would feel like I had more direction on where I wanted to head.

The X1D I like but, the lenses are going to be slow. The Fuji might have some more love but the Fuji Blad HC lenses, I'm not a fan of. The out of focus and bokeh is nothing I like at all.

I do feel that cameras like the D810, and to some extent the 5DS R, are probably better places to focus on for future as they close the gap further on medium format. Medium Format will always be king because it has the physical advantage of better quality but judging by the similarities between an a7r2 and a Phase One P45, it's going to get interesting as things progress.

The Leica S seems like a perfect balance to me, I love the look of the lenses. To their credit they are the pioneers of this sort of camera, IMO. Too bad it's crippled with reliability issues and has been stuck on 37MP since 2008. I saw a comparison with the 5DS R and the Canon came out very favourable in some keys areas.

kers · « **Reply #30 on:** October 11, 2016, 02:26:02 pm »

Why should Leica not introduce a camera with a 100MP Sony sensor?

It seems a matter of time.
It would do them good showing more of the real quality of these excellent lenses.
And they can ask a high price for the camera for its named Leica.
it would do them well for sure.

siddhaarta · « **Reply #31 on:** October 11, 2016, 09:39:58 pm »

Quote from: kers on October 11, 2016, 02:26:02 pm

Why should Leica not introduce a camera with a 100MP Sony sensor?

It seems a matter of time.
It would do them good showing more of the real quality of these excellent lenses.
And they can ask a high price for the camera for its named Leica.
it would do them well for sure.

I would love that, but it probably won't happen, because:

1) According to Leica statements, the current S lenses are designed exactly for the Leica Pro Format (Diagonal 54mm vs 67 mm Sony 100MP sensor). So they would have to start a new lens family … (having said that I wonder if this Leica statement is correct ... think of Leica R (43 mm diagonal) tele lenses which can be adapted to Leica S without vignetting issues)
2) According to Leica statements, the preferred aspect ratio is 3:2 and not 4:3 (which, by the way, is also an important factor, why the Leica S body is quite compact, because the mirror box has not to be that deep).

I am quite sure, they will make a mirror less version of S (probably with new lenses), but it will need some time. Again, they stated they won't make it until it is technical feasible to make a MF EVF with high resolution, fast and short black out time. Again they said, currently it is not possible to meet this standard (I assume Leica SL EVF standard).

Obviously Hasselblad wants to be first in this new market segment, but at the cost of a subpar EVF. Therefore I am curious what Fuji will get done as regards the EFV.

kers · « **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2016, 03:52:10 am »

Quote from: siddhaarta on October 11, 2016, 09:39:58 pm

....
I am quite sure, they will make a mirror less version of S (probably with new lenses), but it will need some time. Again, they stated they won't make it until it is technical feasible to make a MF EVF with high resolution, fast and short black out time. Again they said, currently it is not possible to meet this standard (I assume Leica SL EVF standard).
Obviously Hasselblad wants to be first in this new market segment, but at the cost of a subpar EVF. Therefore I am curious what Fuji will get done as regards the EFV.

This blackout time as you call it was exactly the argument i got from Nikon spokesmen on my question why not a Nikon FF mirrorless...
I have not tried the Leica R, but i understand it also has an EVF with some blackout time?

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2016, 03:59:43 am »

Hi,

To keep things in perspective, a DSLR has also a a viewfinder blackout time, as the mirror needs to be flipped out and back into the optical path. There may be a need for setting a settling time prior shutter release, as the mirror up operation induces vibrations. Landscape photographers often use mirror lock up for that reason.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: kers on October 12, 2016, 03:52:10 am

This blackout time as you call it was exactly the argument i got from Nikon spokesmen on my question why not a Nikon FF mirrorless...
I have not tried the Leica R, but i understand it also has an EVF with some blackout time?

Rob C · « **Reply #34 on:** October 12, 2016, 05:53:07 am »

Having used slr-type cameras exclusively since the Exakta Varex llA, from the Nikon F onwards I am not even aware of mirror black-out; it's so rapid as not to count. Either way, the speed certainly outwits any attempt by me at useful second or more shots in rapid succession. I had motor drive for my F2 and only used it once, because it galloped through film and didn't really let me see what the hell I was doing. I don't like loss of control in those matters! Little point in getting several near identical shots of a model's eyelids closing down... I would normally want them open.

In fairness to the discussion, I have not used a camera with EVF and so the problem may be greater or smaller than I imagine. I'd find it hard to accept that anybody would market a camera where you can't see what you're about to shoot... Equally, I'd be amazed to discover anyone marketing a lens that has to be exchaged a couple of times from new just to get a non-lemon version... and we all know where that belief would get me today.

kers · « **Reply #35 on:** October 12, 2016, 07:55:42 am »

This blackout time has been reduced in DSLRs over the years. I can imagine it is of great importance to action and press shooters.
When Nikon came up with the D3x body; they should have realized -more than they did- that with this body an other kind of photographer was going to use it.
Too bad that they did not serve that kind of photographer well by releasing state of they art prime lenses.
Now i think they should not wait too long to come up with a mirroless FF. The photographer world is changing a lot.
The press photographers - at least in here in the Netherlands- have a hard time earning money because of the man in the street with the mobile phone that is there at the right moment and delivers for free.
I was surprised that there was not a FF-mirrorless on the photokina neither from Canon nor Nikon.
At the moment the progress comes from medium format companies, strangely enough.

Pieter Kers

Ray · « **Reply #36 on:** October 12, 2016, 08:00:56 am »

Quote from: Petrus on October 02, 2016, 03:18:03 pm

What if you calculate the light gathering ability of the whole system, not just the sensor? Hassy has f/3.5 and f/3.2 lenses, Nikon has f/1.8 and f/1.4 at all corresponding focal lengths. So comparing XD1 with f/3.2 lens to a Nikon D810 with f/1.4 lens, Nikon has 300% more light gathering ability than XD1.

Good point that's very relevant when a desired DoF and/or a higher than base ISO is required because of poor lighting conditions.

For example, if a large DoF is required, the 35mm full-frame lens can be used at a one stop larger aperture, at least. A one stop larger aperture results in double the amount of light reaching the sensor, at a given shutter speed.

If shutter speed is not an issue because the subject is static and the camera is on a tripod, then the larger format has a light-gathering advantage.
However, if shutter speed is an issue, because of poor lighting and a moving subject, requiring the use of a higher-than-base ISO on the larger format, then any light-gathering advantage of the larger format is nullified.

Michael Erlewine · « **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2016, 08:45:52 am »

Quote from: Ray on October 12, 2016, 08:00:56 am

If shutter speed is not an issue because the subject is static and the camera is on a tripod, then the larger format has a light-gathering advantage.
However, if shutter speed is an issue, because of poor lighting and a moving subject, requiring the use of a higher-than-base ISO on the larger format, then any light-gathering advantage of the larger format is nullified.

Exactly! I intend to use the X1D I have on order for landscapes, portraits, etc. And continue to use my Nikon D810 for other things, plus I have a ton of F-Mount lenses. Also might look into the new Fuji mirrorless MF camera, with an adapter for F-Mounts.

Rob C · « **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2016, 08:57:16 am »

Quote from: kers on October 12, 2016, 07:55:42 am

This blackout time has been reduced in DSLRs over the years. I can imagine it is of great importance to action and press shooters.
When Nikon came up with the D3x body; they should have realized -more than they did- that with this body an other kind of photographer was going to use it.
Too bad that they did not serve that kind of photographer well by releasing state of they art prime lenses.
Now i think they should not wait too long to come up with a mirroless FF. The photographer world is changing a lot.
The press photographers - at least in here in the Netherlands- have a hard time earning money because of the man in the street with the mobile phone that is there at the right moment and delivers for free.
I was surprised that there was not a FF-mirrorless on the photokina neither from Canon nor Nikon.
At the moment the progress comes from medium format companies, strangely enough.

Pieter Kers

Indeed, but no type of pro's camera is going make the commercial buyers pay more than what they can get for pretty much nothing. Ego-driven sales/gratis work always counts highly in this world. If you don't believe me, consider what exactly that has done to the great photographic stock agencies of yesteryear. Drove me out, for one, and has badly damaged several other professional photographers I know. Changing days; changed markets and the dumbing down of everything. Just watch the news or Presidential Debates for confirmation. Bullshit is all. The public has stopped questioning; Big Brother isn't just a stupid show: the real Big Bro is already ensconced in control, whichever colour of hat he/she decides to wear at any given time. It's a done deal, our Faustian Pact.

Rob

kers · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2016, 09:52:39 am »

Quote from: Rob C on October 12, 2016, 08:57:16 am

...
Just watch the news or Presidential Debates for confirmation. Bullshit is all. The public has stopped questioning...

Rob

a nice can of worms for the Coffee Corner...

what did we learn today:

Let's not low our discussions here to the presidential level...

Author Topic: Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras (Read 14696 times)