roman.johnston wrote:
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.
Put it all in, the MF is going down the history. Well, in the foreseeable future, there still is a minuscule market for MF, and it is getting smaller and smaller.......
cineski wrote:
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....Show more →
this thread is a provocative one. I do know there is still a small--getting smaller with time---market for MF, for the very high end, for the one who want "the best", that each of us will have to define for ourselves. I don't know the $$$ of MF-market share, but my guess is it is no thing compared with DSLR- and even P&S markets..
nugeny wrote:
this thread is a provocative one. I do know there is still a small--getting smaller with time---market for MF, for the very high end, for the one who want "the best", that each of us will have to define for ourselves. I don't know the $$$ of MF-market share, but my guess is it is no thing compared with DSLR- and even P&S markets..
There is a large desire for medium format cameras, just not many who can afford them! They are also such a compromise on everything from shooting speed, AF performance, ISO, lens selections, etc. They are a 1 trick pony that does their trick really well. For most this one trick is not worth the investment. I mean really, $10-30K just for a body and back? Throw lenses in there and you're at the price of a new Cadillac. Even many very successful photographers cannot absorb the investment medium format digital requires, especially as they would probably still need to keep a DSLR system for other assignments. MF won't cut it as a 'one system' solution for most.
cineski wrote:
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....Show more →
agreed, and as mention earlier in the thread, getting garish bokeh or whatever you folks call the out of focus parts in medium/large formats is harder if not impossible to get.
The Sony 4.75 um pitch photosites outperform the Pentax 5.93 um pitch photosites for dynamic range, color sensitivity and FWC, and match for SNR and tonal range. The FWC is estimated based on the maximum SNR at the lowest ISO.
If we use another example the Phase One IQ180, with 5.17 um pitch, the photosites are much less efficient than Sony 4.75 um, only about half the Quantum Efficiency,but the double nummber of pixels compensate for this. So the signal to noise ratio at the image level for the same ISO will still only be equal to the D800. The interesting advantage of the IQ backs sensor tech is their extended Full Well Capacity, meaning ISO 30 capability.
Until everyone stops making 120/220 film for my Mamiya RZ 67 - I'll be shooting and scanning happily. There is nothing more satisfying than listening to the spring loaded whiiiiiz that a lens makes when triggered, or the loud ker-whaaack of a mirror returning to the rest position.
As far as resolution / quality goes? The D800 takes a leap-frog step, and it may now start to see in it's horizon what a MF system can provide.
I'll let you know when I get my D800 and run some comparisons............
i said current for a reason. i know that many older medium format sensors aren't up to current small format sensors.
Herb...
alundeb wrote:
The Sony 4.75 um pitch photosites outperform the Pentax 5.93 um pitch photosites for dynamic range, color sensitivity and FWC, and match for SNR and tonal range. The FWC is estimated based on the maximum SNR at the lowest ISO.
it's going to be a lot sooner than you think. no-one wants Kodak's film business in anything like its current form and they are highly likely going to close it down as part of their bankruptcy. Fuji will be able to keep going a while longer but they are also actively trying to close down their photographic film business. whatever happens, selection will continue to diminish and prices will continue to rise.
Herb...
hdavid wrote:
Until everyone stops making 120/220 film for my Mamiya RZ 67 - I'll be shooting and scanning happily.
36 megapixels might just get the results beating medium format film.. :-)
Tim
p.s. Kodak have announced that their film division are still in profit (the negative material that is used between cinematography and stills being the core part of their business). By most estimates it's worth hundreds of millions..
afm901 wrote:
Let's put our thinking caps on for a second before we type.
The lens projects what shape image? Yes, a circular image. If the circular image covers 36mm horizontally, what will it cover vertically?
Hint: 36mm
Scott
Count 1:
If you're suggesting a lense designed for 36mmx24mm coverage will correctly cover 36x36, you're wrong on two counts.
draw a diagram of a circle. Now draw a 3x2 aspect rectangle in the circle. That's a 35mm lense. The're not designed for lots of coverage as there's never any movements like with a view camera, and less glass is always cheaper. The Japanese understand this- you're not getting more glass than absolutely necessary.
Now, enlarge that rectangle for your image to be as tall as it's wide. Whoops, the edges are now outside the circle and you've have vignetting or bad quality there.
Count 2:
There's quite a few Nikon lenses with internal masks that make sure the image coming out the back is rectangular. This is common on Mamiya 645 lenses as well. You just can't get a square image out of them.
Peek into the rear of a 200mm f/4 AF-D for example.
Jammy Straub wrote:
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.
Which to a large extent was driven by image size. Where 35mm optics were designed to reproduce fine detail on film at 80-100 lp/mm, 6x7 optics only had to go to 40-50 lp/mm for the same print size. At 50 lp/mm film has MUCH higher MTF than at 100 lp/mm, so MF lenses didn't have to be as high acutance. 35mm lenses were designed with this in mind - a lot of attention was paid to coatings, glass formulations, and interior barrel design (to reduce veiling scatter) to maintain high acutance. Aberrations that reduced acutance, like spherical aberration, were given higher precedence than other that were relatively less important, like chromatic aberrations further out in the field. The spectral response of coatings were optimized for a sharp, crisp image more than for smooth hue reproduction.
When MFD backs appeared, they started from a different premise, because the lenses were different and the photographer expected a different look. Color filters were designed to maintain this look. It drove the choice of doing away with AA filters (which works better with lenses that aren't very high contrast at the pixel pitch).
There's nothing special about a pixel pitch - other than 1) sensitivity, and 2) a larger well can theoretically hold more charge. But #2 above is more theoretical than real. We're left with sensitivity, and last I checked MFD backs didn't exactly excel in this area either.
Other than this there's absolutely no reason in the world a 35mm camera can't produce images that look exactly like MF. None. To believe otherwise is just to put faith in magic. It's the same light, same electric charge, same ADCs, and pretty much the same processing fundamentals. The only reason they look different is because of market expectations. And possibly a bit more of a hi-fi type design mindset from the makers.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Which to a large extent was driven by image size. Where 35mm optics were designed to reproduce fine detail on film at 80-100 lp/mm, 6x7 optics only had to go to 40-50 lp/mm for the same print size. At 50 lp/mm film has MUCH higher MTF than at 100 lp/mm, so MF lenses didn't have to be as high acutance. 35mm lenses were designed with this in mind - a lot of attention was paid to coatings, glass formulations, and interior barrel design (to reduce veiling scatter) to maintain high acutance. Aberrations that reduced acutance, like spherical aberration, were given higher precedence than other that were relatively less important, like chromatic aberrations further out in the field. The spectral response of coatings were optimized for a sharp, crisp image more than for smooth hue reproduction.
When MFD backs appeared, they started from a different premise, because the lenses were different and the photographer expected a different look. Color filters were designed to maintain this look. It drove the choice of doing away with AA filters (which works better with lenses that aren't very high contrast at the pixel pitch).
There's nothing special about a pixel pitch - other than 1) sensitivity, and 2) a larger well can theoretically hold more charge. But #2 above is more theoretical than real. We're left with sensitivity, and last I checked MFD backs didn't exactly excel in this area either.
Other than this there's absolutely no reason in the world a 35mm camera can't produce images that look exactly like MF. None. To believe otherwise is just to put faith in magic. It's the same light, same electric charge, same ADCs, and pretty much the same processing fundamentals. The only reason they look different is because of market expectations. And possibly a bit more of a hi-fi type design mindset from the makers. ...Show more →
"#2" isn't theoretical- it's very real. Just check on the problems flash and dram makers have as the sizes of memory cells continues to shrink. It becomes harder and harder to tell noise from the data or in the case of imagers, the image itself. Take any camera out there, the tinier the cells the noisier the image. That's how it works.
Also, images from larger formats look different from 35mm. There's more going on that just the film or sensor. A 4mm lense in some cell phone doesn't look the same as a 240mm lense on a 8x10 camera, at all, even if you attempt to eliminate factors such as film or sensor type.
The D800 has increased MP compared to older cameras, but not really a huge or rapid change. It has 50% more MP than the Sony A900 from 2008 and 70% more than the 1Ds III from 2007. The MP of MF backs has increased quite a lot during that same timeframe also, and an increase in the number of pixels in the same ares has diminishing returns. Of course some people don't need MF and some people don't need FF/FX, but it does not mean that there are obvious differences in IQ.
