Last nail in the coffin. As if. Clearly the person who wrote that has never seen/printed a 6X6cm negative or made a print with the same.
Especially from a Rollie twin
Not sure about the digital medium format. Don't care.
Technology is getting better and that's fine. That is no reason to throw perfectly good tools under the bus.
Do me a favor a blow up your little 35 mm (don't care how many mp's to 6 feet and tell me it beats medium format.... Please.
Not to say I not happy for the Nikon folks who have the D800 . It's sounds great. But if you think it's better IQ than medium format... your dreaming.
I guess we need to be more specific, as MF is many formats and technologies.
The Pentax 645D will be in trouble. Despite having slightly larger photosites, they are both less efficient and have less Full Well Capacity than this Sony sensor tech. In theory, the D800 can give a higher maximum signal to noise ratio image than the 645D.
Since the crop factor from 36x24 mm to 44x36 mm is small, you will also not se a huge effect of the different lens design for MF on that camera.
alundeb wrote:
I guess we need to be more specific, as MF is many formats and technologies.
The Pentax 645D will be in trouble. Despite having slightly larger photosites, they are both less efficient and have less Full Well Capacity than this Sony sensor tech. In theory, the D800 can give a higher maximum signal to noise ratio image than the 645D.
Since the crop factor from 36x24 mm to 44x36 mm is small, you will also not se a huge effect of the different lens design for MF on that camera.
It's bigger than the difference between APS-C and APS-H. Not huge, but not nothing.
Compared to the bigger MF backs, the difference is in some cases about the same as micro 4/3s to FF in scale.
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!
Sorry, your standpoint is completely ignorant. Statement 'bigger is better' goes from better signal to noise ratio of larger light registration area. Simple physics. 36 MP MF camera will hold up better than 36 MP FF in everything: color, resolution and overall 'look'. High ISO could also be better but MFing isn't about speed and convenience, so manufacturers do not make anything for night shooting due to zero liability of such a thing. Since you're talking about ditching MF ground by taking it's place with latest FF offering, you don't need high ISO anyway. That's first.
Second, take a look at the prices of high quality medium format optics. The price of the set of ground glass itself may cost more that the finished market product for 135 mm format. Most FF offerings are trade-offs between price and quality and such will always be. MF on the other hand is a product for special tasks and is made to complement unique needs of professional user.
nugeny wrote:
just a twist: nothing stops Nikon/Canon fro making 36x36 instead of 36x24.. That would increase mp by 1/3 to 48MP?
as others have already mentioned it's not quite that simple, nugeny
because if you increase the height you'll have to decrease the width in order to stay within the image circle
the diameter of the image circle for classic 24 x 36 mm is ~ 43,27 mm - using Pythagoras: a^2 + b^2 = c^2
within this usual FF image circle diameter of 43,27 mm you can only put a square format of 30,59 x 30,59 mm, here using the squareroot of (a^2+b^2)/2 mm
for a 36 x 36 mm sensor you would need an image circle of ~ 50,91 mm
Jammy Straub wrote:
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....Show more →
I am thinking about the whole process of making pictures, not just the size of cameras, of pixels, the number of pixs. The digital cameras come with computer and photoshops, printer, papers. It is somuch easier and better to make the final images.
have you read and seen some images of AA's process of making, editing, burning, ....It is painfully slow and the final result is one picture. Now if you scan the old film..it would be another story to discuss, because that kind of 'cheating ' for films, that should use the process of wet room of its time, not scanner and computer and modern printers.
a current medium format back at the same resolution as the D800 will have better sensor sites. how often anyone shoots that will show the difference in ways that matter depends on what you shoot but the difference is there. you may not care but it is there. what the D800 does though is clobber the used market for older generation medium format backs with less than 39MP. those are old enough where the D3X and now the D800 are able to match their image quality.
HerbChong wrote:
a current medium format back at the same resolution as the D800 will have better sensor sites. how often anyone shoots that will show the difference in ways that matter depends on what you shoot but the difference is there. you may not care but it is there. what the D800 does though is clobber the used market for older generation medium format backs with less than 39MP. those are old enough where the D3X and now the D800 are able to match their image quality.
Herb...
And the squeeze will continue for the forseeable future. That is good new for us, DSLR users.
Nugeny, I've read a your posts here and they have left me scratching my head for several reasons. Namely, have you ever shot medium format? If so or not, why are you wanting it to disappear? Has it done something to you? Every time I see someone post something that the D800 is the MF killer, it screams that person has no clue what they're talking about (I'm using this as a broad stroke toward all these comments). Kodak, last I checked, is thankfully not dead and is still producing lots of products including film. Hurting? Sure. But they're not dead and if they play their cards right will make it through their bad direction. As for 4x5 being 'allowed' as you almost put it to be used in a modern work flow, have you ever seem 4x5 film scanned to a high res digital file? That's something nothing but a 4x5 camera and good scanner can accomplish. Partly because of resolution, partly because of the image size, partly because of field of view. I don't care how high a resolution image a small sensor has you will never be able to duplicate a large negative/sensor with a small one. Funny thing is to those who know, modern films in the modern workflow equals astounding results.
nugeny wrote:
The lens is round. if it is good for 36x24, it will be good for 36x36.
No, Brett and Steen DK are right, your statement is incorrect. A circle that covers a 36x24 rectangle precisely simply will not cover a 36x36 square. Draw it out if you don't believe me.
OccAeon wrote:
No, Brett and Steen DK are right, your statement is incorrect. A circle that covers a 36x24 rectangle precisely simply will not cover a 36x36 square. Draw it out if you don't believe me.
You are right. With current FF lenses, one would get max 30x30 not 36x36.
I don't buy the OP's premise but I do wonder if the increasing quality of the 35mm format and it's lower costs aren't cutting the size of the market for medium format.
If so, I'd expect that the amount of R&D money spent on MF would start to drop or the cost of new backs would significantly increase. Wouldn't that get into a downward spiral that would marginalize the MF base - similar to what's happened to digital music compared to vinyl - there's still a market for vinyl and probably will be for generations but it's very much at the margins.
nugeny wrote:
Nikon D800/d800E seems to play this role? I don't see a future for any MF=medium format, do you?
The only prints I've seen from medium format digital were from the Pentax 645D. If the D800 can provide the same amount of detail and the same tonal gradations with 4' - 5' prints as I've seen from that camera then it has no future. But I'll be very surprised if that turns out to be the case. There's more to image quality than the number of mpx.
Lets put it this way. For my type of work I am THRILLED TO DEATH that the D800/D800E was introduced. It will be high on my list of purchases this year.
With that said...if I could afford a Phase one 80MP setup with lenses (about $50,000 after its all done and said) I would get it...and not look back for a second.
35MM is creeping into MF territory, but there is a reason those big sensors are available, why they are so desired. If you shoot both side by side and compare only the quality of output ....there is no comparison.
Now....in the grey area, we have ISO issues where the D800 will kick MF's butt....as well as portability, price...etc.
You start throwing those pieces in the mix and the lines can often get blurry.
