True. Biger pixels will always be better, all else being equal (same generation, similar well placement, similar software algorythms) A lot of the MF backs are using 9µ pixels. I think these are 4.6µ if I remember correctly?
So a 39MP MP back should outshine the 36x24, 36MP 800, no question.
On the other end, an 80MP back is going to beat 36MP, even with the same size pixel. (Looks like the IQ180 uses a 5.2µ pixel, so a little larger) Quantity does become quality in an odd way in digital.
BUT ... there is alwys an incremental cost to the benefit. And the question is where the price/performance curve lies, especially for your own work.
I was looking at some 22MP backs in the $3,000 range that would probably have as good image quality as the 800. But they require a MF camera, harder to use, not as good an LCD, not as good high ISO, etc.
Then those 80MP backs are in the $29K range, and the depreciation is wicked high ...
I imagine the real cost to own the 800 or 800E might be about $500 to $650 a year for the first 2 years, if that. Buy it at $3,000 to $3,300, sell at $2,000 to $2,300 in 2 years ... that's what really counts.
Which is why Nikon should take the D7000/d800 sensor and make a 4x5 back. Or a sensor ~twice the size as MFD in a body with good AF. Ooooh that'd be fun. Lug around a 5lb camera for action shots. Yes I would.
nugeny wrote:
MF is better or just different? Better? in what way? please elaborate!
First of all, 14-bit color is no match for 16-bit that MF uses. Secondly, the FX sensor size is no match for that of MF. The optical resolving power of MF glasses can easily outperform even the best Nikkor.
SloPhoto wrote:
There will never be a replacement for sensor size.
How so?
AA used to shoot with cameras on his truck bed because he couldn't move them otherwise. to big boxes. We don't have to do it any longer and get better IQ.
"Never be a replacement for sensor size"??
It seems like yesterday, we thought films would live for ever. Kodak is dead!
nugeny wrote:
How so?
AA used to shoot with cameras on his truck bed because he couldn't move them otherwise. to big boxes. We don't have to do it any longer and get better IQ.
"Never be a replacement for sensor size"??
It seems like yesterday, we thought films would live for ever. Kodak is dead!
He carried the 8x10 into the field and when he couldn't a mule did. Kodak hasn't died yet as their bankruptcy is an effort to restructure and stay alive. Ilford and Fuji are still making 8x10 film as well. You can buy 12x20 Efke film at freestyle - in stock.
Ansel:
When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'.
Zichar wrote:
I'm just waiting to see what you're gonna buy Zach and
The smart thing would be nothing. Or more 8x10 Velvia. The d800 looks amazing and I would definitely want one but 2 great lenses would end up costing more than the camera. I have the 8x10 so I am set with resolution. Must.control.myself.
nugeny wrote:
How so?
AA used to shoot with cameras on his truck bed because he couldn't move them otherwise. to big boxes. We don't have to do it any longer and get better IQ.
!
You are thinking in a purely quantitative mindset. Once you reach a certain level of competency from a working standpoint and a tool standpoint the work becomes of a qualitative type that is defined by characteristics you look to impart in your work.
A 36mp DSLR may reach the resolution of a 4x5 negative with some film, that does not mean that it is inherently 'better'. Nor does it mean that the 4x5 has no features that distinguish it from the smaller format.
The larger sensor or film area in a medium format camera imparts a different look to the images it produces.. Every manufacturer; Mamiya, Zeiss, Fuji, etc... have lenses that have different rendering styles. Those unique characteristics are what makes those systems interesting, not just their resolution.
---
While digital is not film, we can look at 35mm compared to 6x7 shooting the same film stock and enlarged to 16x20. The 6x7 image will hold up much better for several reasons that don't directly translate to the digital realm. (In that instance you have more film real estate and a lower enlargement factor)
In the digital realm if we were to take a 35mm FX sized sensor at 36mp and a 645 sized 36mp sensor and print at 16x20, we'd see a similar phenomenon to the film comparison but with different reasons behind the discrepancies in the two prints. Larger photo sites, for roughly equivalent camera generations, mean better image quality for a given resolution. Now that can change over time given advances in sensor technology.
But as a whole, bigger is better. You've just got to have some timeline perspective when you think about it.
