How much better will digital get?

[BobMcCarthy]

My guess is, the shot employing only R pixels would be noticeably lower quality than the S pixel shot (standard mode)which had been exposed for the highlights.

Very interesting. What if the small pixel is just modifying the result (255) of the larger blown out pixel? Its raw data may not be used, but may merely recalculate the adjacent pixel result.

Its a 6 megapixel camera then. And not what I'm looking for. I can just use multiple frames with a higher mpxl camera !

[Bobtrips]

Obviously digital had driven me temporarily insane.  When a 22MP back becomes reasonable (5 years?  10?  ever?)  I'll do some serious digital shooting again.

I sure wish  I had lugged the Contax to Israel.  At least then I'd have some 'real' shots for posterity.

As soon as I have the money  I will spend up to $5k for a mint Plaubel Veriwide 100.  Or maybe  an Alpa.  Screw digital.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone over the age of 16 make themselves as miserable about something that they didn't have the cash to purchase.

Why don't you get yourself a part time job and start saving?  Most likely you could put aside enough in a couple of years to purchase a good used MF back.  

In the meantime staying busy will help you keep your mind off your predicament.  

[Quentin]

Canon has been able to pull it off and they now  virtually stand alone.  Nikon limps along by virtue of their history alone.  Watch carefully the press pit at the games, political events and it is hard to find a single Nikon.

The press pit shows that Canon is dominant in one aspect of photography; making the fast, highly automated "ultimate point and shoot cameras" needed for journalistic and sports photography. And this domination started before digital, driven by things like lens technology.

I do not think however, that this shows that "resistence is futile" in all aspects of high quality photography. What works well in the press pit is rather irrelevant to those who operate in "frames per minute", if not "minutes per frame", such as most medium format users.

Exactly.  And how short some memories are.  Remember the Nikon D1?   When that came out, in the Jurassic era (1999), you could have said "Nikon virtually stands alone".

Things change too fast in digital to justify conclusions, particulary when they are mainly based around a single camera.

Quentin

[Ray]

There's a possibility that, as technology advances, large format, high pixel-count cameras will become affordable simply because it's affordable to produce them. Such cameras might be more than you need; almost certainly will be more than you need just as any modern computer that anyone can buy will likely have more facilities than anyone wants to use.

I see no problem with this. Anyone who is currently interested in nothing larger than 6x4" prints needs no more than a 2 megapixel camera which no manufacturer is now producing (except in cell phones and the like).

Technology marches on. Money has to be made. People have to upgrade. Salesmen and advertising agencies will continue to promote the superior product.

[howard smith]

"Any time you examine the issue of sharpness it must be seen in the context of magnification and viewing distance. Look at a billboard from across the street. See the pretty girl with silky long hair standing on a beach, enticing you to flee winter and join her in the Bahamas? Looks pretty sharp. Individual strands of hair are visible and you can almost count the grains of sand.

Now climb up on the scaffolding and look at the billboard from a distance of 24 inches. All that beautiful detail has been reduced to half-tone dots the size of golf balls. The image likely isn't even intelligible any longer — it's just big blobs of coloured dots.

This explains why medium and large format images appear "sharper" than prints made from 35mm — even though the 35mm lenses may have as much as twice the resolution. They simply don't need to be enlarged as much. To make an 8X10" print a 35mm frame needs to be enlarged about 8X. A 6X6 frame about 3X. As long as prints are small it doesn't make much difference. Beyond about an 8X10" print though even the best shot 35mm images start to lose quality, while a 6X6cm based image is usually fine up to about 16X20"."

Michael Reichmann

[didger]

Or maybe that is why so many 8x10 users seem to be fond of grand, distant subjects, for which getting adequate DOF is easier

Well, the only 8x10 shooter I know is Michael Fatali, and he does a lot of slot canyons and these are notoriously the most DOF challenging subjects, so I wonder how he manages.  Having seen a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 gallery exhibits it's very hard to believe that those guys are so crippled by DOF and diffraction constraints.

In the case of MF, you don't even generally have the option of lens motions like LF, so does this mean then that medium format is less versatile for DOF than 35mm?  Would you lose a lot of the benefit of the extra resolution with 22 Mpixel MF backs due to diffraction and DOF constraints?  There's still something massively hard to understand about all this.  How could Michael be so enthused about p25 if you're losing so much of the resolution benefit when you're not shooting easy DOF subjects at f11 or so? The biggest challenge for landscape photography is getting enough DOF most of the time, so what good is a p25 back?

[BJL]

a) What do you meant "once sensor technology matures"?  1ds is already beyond most lenses and 1dsMKII is way beyond all but a mere handful of lenses, none of them the wide and ultrawide lenses I care about most.

 Yeah, but as Jonathan explained, you don't get relatively more diffraction problems with larger formats, since it's absolute aperture diameter and not the f stop value that determine this.

c) If you additionally take into account your observation that larger lenses are relatively easier to make because absolute machining and grinding accuracy tolerances also get relaxed proportionately with absolute lens size, then it's win/win every which way for going to a larger format.

a) I mostly agree, but I was covering myself. Medium format certainly has room to increase sensor size a bit, even smaller photosites might be useful for completely removing sensor as a limitation on resolution, and it is not clear to me that the best Canon and Nikon primes cannot benefit from improved sensor resolution.

 That is what I have also tried to explain, over and over again: same aperture diameter, same diffraction effects and DoF on prints of the same size.

c) How about win, win, lose: the larger format gear is still likely to be heavier and more expensive, and with a smaller range of lens choices, less sopisticated automation of focus exposure and such. But for sheer image quality in slow paced photography I agree, and I can imagine that the range of lenses good enough to get the most out of the sensors (good primes?) is comparable or better in 645. Michael certainly seems more enthusiastic about his Zeiss/Contax 645 lenses.

Yet another possible advantage for a larger format: computed lens resolution probably scales with format size and focal length at the same aperture ratio (balancing out like CoC etc. does), because you can just scale up all dimensions of the lens. But as I have been arguing, larger formats tend to use higher aperture ratios, which should give at least a little room for improvement in high speed, low DOF shots. This may be irrrelevant though in the f/16 to f/32 realm that we have been discussing!

[didger]

OK, I get it.  There was just too much missing information (like that this had to do with wide angle performance) to make the correct connections.  I thought maybe what was meant was that if I just "backed up" and retracted everthing I've posted in the past several months things would be all better.  Actually I didn't know what was meant.  Thanks for the clarification.   

Well, as far as wide angle performance, I'm actually quite satisfied with my Zeiss lenses.  There's a little falloff, a little CA, but these are extremely easy to totally fix in raw conversion.  The virtual total unavailability of Zeiss distagon ultrawides anywhere in the world (including Japan) makes Zeiss lenses not a good ultrawide solution for most people.  Testing a bunch of zooms for the occasional good one is also not feasible for a lot of people.  Somebody needs to make some good ultrawide primes again.

As for all that stuff about DOF and diffraction in larger formats vs smaller, I kinda wish I COULD back my truck up a couple weeks in time and just undo my dipping an oar into those waters.  I still don't get it.  I'd flunk one of BJL's college courses for sure.  In the absence of the sort of brain that's properly equipped for such matters, I'll keep my faith in the good engineering of bumble bees and that MF will give me much better results (including acceptable diffraction and DOF performance) than a very high density 35mm sensor and 35mm lenses.  Consider it a "religious" issue not amenable to math or logic.  Pom's picture and report of direct experience coupled with many people's decades of good results from medium format in general don't hurt either.

[32BT]

Only time will tell about all these predictions and I can't imagine any reason to take any of this so seriously; a little break from image processing while it's too rainy, snowy, and cold to be out shooting.

Well, in this case it is too windy, 10bft, so I don't want to take my non-weather-sealed sub USD1000 digital rebel out anywhere. And perhaps I should take a break from sorting my personal finances, which just gives me too many a glance at some or other IRS reference, any of which is always entirely beyond comprehension. Come to think of it, perhaps i am operating in a different univers.

I was referring at the whole "irate argument" thing and your previous references to being called a madman. I don't really see how either is going to help development or give your statements more credibility. But, I admit, there have been no direct expressions of anger from your side, so I apologize for the misinterpretation.

[Peter McLennan]

My understanding is that "the well" is a reservoir.  It's charged over time to a given voltage by photons and discharged by the reading circuitry, either line by line or all at once, as an array. The stored value for each site is computed by how much power it takes to discharge the well back to zero.

I could also be full of cr@p.  :p

[Bobtrips]

Use your histogram.

Expose to the left.

If you have the ability to greatly extend the camera's DR you won't blow out the highlights.

Don't you mean, expose to the right? I don't see this as a solution. This is just normal practice isn't it?

No.  If you weren't afraid of blowing out your highlights you could adjust your exposure (within limits) to allow capture in the shadow areas.  

If your camera was counting the number of times a highlight 'well' had filled you'd have both the dark and light data to create a very wide DR image.  DR would only be limited by the ability of your presentation medium.

(I may not be correct about exposing to the left.  It just sounded fun.    )

[howard smith]

"Maybe the ability to make loupe-quality 3-foot-by-five-foot shots?"

To please whom?  How many 36x60 prints do you make (or want even)?  I think you may be on to something here.  Why not shoot what you want and like?  Some folks get so hung up on "my lens is better than yours."

The most technological camera/lens/tripod combo is nothing that money can't buy.  But a really great image that you like can be done with a lot of cheaper cameras.

[Paul Sumi]

If someone 5 years ago had told me that there would be any sort of market at all for an $8000 35mm camera I'd have figured they were crazy.  

Really?  Crazy which way - that you'd spend so much or spend so little?

The first "affordable" pro DSLR, the Nikon D1**, came out in June 1999 with 2.74 megapixels and a 1.5X crop at a price of US$5500.  Five years later, for $2500 more you get a FF sensor and 16.7 megapixels that tax the resolving power of most 35mm lenses.  

However, your sentiment is well-taken.  Strictly as an amateur photographer, I never thought I'd own $10,000 worth of camera gear!

** Yes, a year later the Canon D30 came in at 3.3 megapixels for less than $3000.  But who's telling this story?  

[Ben Rubinstein]

On the money front:

Last night I was remarking to my wife that I'm glad I wasn't starting photography when we got married as we managed to sensibly spend all our wedding money on furnishing a house, when I would have spent it on starting a business.

Then I thought for a second, then, when one started out as a wedding photographer, you would buy 2 2nd hand Canon AE-1's (I still miss the A1, the only body I ever fell in love with),  28/50/85mm lenses, a bunch of Vivitar 285 flashes (also 2nd hand if you wanted), two strobes with stands and brollies, a hand meter and a prayer.
That would cost you about oooh, $1500, maximum for enough photographic equipment to start a wedding business.

Now, let's see. A Canon 20D with a 2nd hand 10D for backup and the battery packs to balance the big lenses + 2 batteries each. 4-6 Gig of CF cards, 17-40L and a 70-200L at a minimum. 580ex flash plus backup 550ex. Two strobes with stands and brollies. High powered computer system for batch processing 4-500 RAW files to proofs, anyone want to price it out?

Of couse we save in film, but then didn't we charge the film costs to the client anyway? we sure arn't charging the computer time...

Don't get me wrong, I haven't shot a roll of film since I went digital, but it sure does have a hefty startup price these days compared to when I started out.

[DiaAzul]

"...the aircraft was a North American A3C..."

This is a bit OT, but I am curious as to what an A3C is...I spent a reasonable amount of time around military aircraft and this is the first time that I have come across this name. Also, the only aircraft that comes anywhere close to your original description is the Blackbird...no other aircraft has gone quite as fast or as high (other than the X-15). If you can provide more information I would be interested to follow up on the aircraft.

[Ray]

... In any high DR situation, most of the light which would normally result in a blown highlight, is not being captured by the R pixels. It's falling everywhere else, much of it presumably overspill on the S pixels, and is essentially being wasted.

I do not see this as a problem. The small R pixels are meant to detect only a small fraction of the light available, so as not to fill their wells until several stops beyond the level where the S pixels are full.

The questions is, what proportion of the excess[/i] light, over and above what the S pixels can handle, do the R pixels capture?

If the R pixels are designed to have a 2 stop dynamic range, then adopting the expose to the right principle, we should be able to shoot the same scene in 'wide mode' using a shutter speed 4x slower, or an aperture 2 stops wider than we would use in standard mode exposing for the highlights. I don't see this happening in the test shots and I suspect the reason is those R pixels are just not high enough quality. The spacing between them is too great to produce a high quality image.

This is how I would test the quality of those R pixels. Select an appropriate white or pale target containing lots of fine texture such as the weave on a piece of fabric, or the slightly rough surface of grey concrete. Set the exposure on the S3 in standard mode so the entire target became a blown highlight, but only just. (It would probably be necessary to take a few shots in 1/3rd stop increments till one reached the point where only a small amount of detail was just barely visible.)

Switch the camera to wide mode and retake the shot with all other settings the same. The result would be an image that had employed only the the R pixels.

One could then reshoot the scene with camera in standard mode, but this time correctly exposing for the highlights in order to capture the texture of the fabric. How would the 2 photos compare?

My guess is, the shot employing only R pixels would be noticeably lower quality than the S pixel shot (standard mode)which had been exposed for the highlights.

[Sfleming]

Hhmm! I should use my Fuji GSW690lll with fixed 65mm lens equivalent to 35mm format 28mm. The Fujinon f5.6 lens is very sharp. I should really use this camera more often but the thought of messing around with film, buying it, getting it developed, scanning it etc is simply offputting.

But I'm going to make a real effort next time I go out bush.  

I took my 10D to Israel and shot the whole country over  three weeks. I got some great images.  I got the narcotic of digital coursing through my veins.  I was a hopeless addict.

I came home and back to my normal shooting which  is landscape of my neighborhood, The Hill Country of Texas.  Like Van Gogh (I wish) I believe in shooting what I see in front of me ... here ... now.  Of course the 10D was insufficient and I started to think about a 1Ds.  Knowing it was near the end of it's product cycle I waited  for the 1Ds II.  In the meantime I forced myself to shoot with my Contax 645.

Guess what?  The digital addiction lost it's grip.  What was I thinking?!  $8000.00 to go back to inferior lenses and substandard photography!!!

Obviously digital had driven me temporarily insane.  When a 22MP back becomes reasonable (5 years?  10?  ever?)  I'll do some serious digital shooting again.

I sure wish  I had lugged the Contax to Israel.  At least then I'd have some 'real' shots for posterity.

As soon as I have the money  I will spend up to $5k for a mint Plaubel Veriwide 100.  Or maybe  an Alpa.  Screw digital.

[Bobtrips]

Bob,

I did go out and start a second career in my retirement JUST to finance  my photography.  I spent 20k this year alone.  I love shooting film.  Gotta get my own scanner though.  I wouldn't pay 30k for a DB if I had  ten times my present capital because I'm not a pro and could never justify the expense.  

I'm not  miserable.  I just think digital is obscenely overpriced.

Bet you don't have a sailboat, airplane, or play golf either.  Some hobbies just cost a lot of money.

Pros have to justify their expenses.  Amateurs have the advantage here.  

As for 'obscenely overpriced'.  You're talking about spending $5k for a used film camera.  And how much for a scanner?  Add in five or six years of film savings and you're not talking chicken feed.

[Ray]

Remember the Nikon D1?   When that came out, in the Jurassic era (1999), you could have said "Nikon virtually stands alone".

I do remember the Nikon D1. I was in the U.K at the time I decided to switch from Minolta to Canon because I figured Canon was the more innovative company, had that great image stabiliser system, 3 tilt & shift lenses and an affordable 100-400 IS zoom.

I used to joke about the fact that for a mere 5,000 pounds sterling, you could get a DSLR that could equal the quality of 8x10 prints from scanned 35mm film. Sure it was a milestone, but irrelevant to my needs. Even the Canon D30, better and cheaper than the D1, was too expensive for me.

Canon has clearly taken the lead, which is not to say, however, that Nikon will not catch up   .

[Jonathan Wienke]

Most also seem to believe that  MF digital is a growing aspect of the  Pro DSLR world.  I just  don't.  The price is  too outlandish and it won't last as a market segment.  The day of small highly specialist oriented companies is past.  Past long ago.  The corporate culture  demands monster profits and  high volume.  Artistic endeavours making modest profits are not  tolerated. Keep in mind  it is an oriental corporate  behemoth we are all bowing to.

This is where you're off in la-la-land. Technology is improving at a fairly rapid rate. Keep in mind that less than 10 years ago, a 6MP DSLR cost as much as one of the MF backs you're whining about do today. 10 years from now a 30+MP MF back will probably be less than $4000, and 16+MP 35mm format DSLRS will probably less than $2000. And 4x5 50+MP digital backs will probably be less than $10000. Phase One has a back-order condition on their 22MP backs right now because busy pros can earn back their "outrageous" cost in a few months, and save on hefty film costs for the remaining life of the back, while simultaneously increasing their output quality. Or are you proposing that every photographer buying a MF back is a flaming idiot?