There will always be a place for a larger sensor camera like Hasselblad, Phase, and Pentax.
Images from my 5D MK II's look great until I see them next to my Hassy H4D 40 files. And no it's not the extra 19MP's.
The depth, tonality, the mojo from the H4 are really remarkable.
nugeny wrote:
Nikon D800/d800E seems to play this role? I don't see a future for any MF=medium format, do you?
I have found this post very interesting indeed. I am still a die hard film user and I regret I sold my medium format camera and lenses when I began to use digital.
It is not my intention to stir things up between both media but I continue to see tonalities with film that I do not see with digital. I know that eventually I will as sensor technology continues to improve.
When it comes to enlargements, the biggest disadvantage, in my opinion, with film is its grain. In that respect digital is cleaner. When it comes to resolution, I am convinced MF is superior.
I have no experience with digital MF and it is still too expensive to even be considered by someone like me, a strict amateur photographer but the quality is there.
Digital technology is not perfect yet, we all know that. When Nikon, years back, experimented with their LBCAST sensor they thought that the big, fat pixels will not only gather more light and resolution but also the big pixels will do a great job on noise. I do not really know why upon introducing the D2H they proclaimed better resolution, which it does and better noise performance, which it does not because it was obvious from the beginning that the camera could not compete with Canon in the noise department. As far as I know, the LBCAST was not in continuous production after that and instead they went with a CIMO (I hope I spelled it right) sensor upon introducing the D2X, with more pixels that instead were considerably smaller and almost identical in performance when it came to noise.
Appears to me, that at least with pixels, bigger is not necessarily better but as I said, technology improvements could be changing all that.
In my humble opinion, the limitations on sharpness when it comes to MF resides in the grain of the film in use. I can see now when I look at 16x20 enlargements from a Hasselblad camera using ISO 400 the ugly grain that limits small details. Instead, similar enlargements from digital SLR cameras are cleaner and appear to show more details.
I have experience with 4x5 negatives but I have never used an 8x10. I do not have a truck!
Negatives, especially slides, shot with 4x5 yield enlargements with sharpness and tonalities that in my opinion are very hard to obtain with digital. In general, film is sharp, no AA filter needed.
These comments come from my personal experience and they only reflect my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Edit for correction: Indeed the sensor of the D2X is a CMO sensor.
joeisayo wrote:
There will always be a place for a larger sensor camera like Hasselblad, Phase, and Pentax.
Images from my 5D MK II's look great until I see them next to my Hassy H4D 40 files. And no it's not the extra 19MP's.
The depth, tonality, the mojo from the H4 are really remarkable.
The question is how long they can last. In 2007 the total sold unit count was just above 10,000 in total world wide, and it's been going downhill steadily since then. The Pentax made a very small and short peak int that downwards pointing curve, but I doubt it will make a dent in the long run.
Leicas "roaring success" with the S2 is soaring all over the Leica fanboi nets - it's impossible to get hold of a tryout sample, and even more impossible to buy - that how well it has sold. Until you look at the total number of units produced... Which seems to be around 250pcs.
That's how many cameras Nikon And Canon sell every fifteen minutes. Four quarters of the hour, 24hrs per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year.
A small specialist market may remain, with increasingly difficult margins for the manufacturers. At least one more manufacturer will reach critical mass and implode in the next year or four.
well i'd say that Pentax is going to be the first simply because it was a good idea in most respects but dumb in the one that matters most, that it make money for the company. of the remaining three, it's a tossup.
Herb...
theSuede wrote:
A small specialist market may remain, with increasingly difficult margins for the manufacturers. At least one more manufacturer will reach critical mass and implode in the next year or four.
You bring your finest D800 picture and a 4K projector ($8000+) versus my best Velvia 50 120 slide on my $60 fleabay projector and guess who will get the most oohs and aahs?
Medium Format Film is just a mind blowing experience when seen with a loupe on a lightbox or viewed as a projected slide show. I don't know much about the MF digital except they have a certain look to them that is very attractive. MF has an amazing pedigree.
Slug69 wrote:
You bring your finest D800 picture and a 4K projector ($8000+) versus my best Velvia 50 120 slide on my $60 fleabay projector and guess who will get the most oohs and aahs?
Medium Format Film is just a mind blowing experience when seen with a loupe on a lightbox or viewed as a projected slide show. I don't know much about the MF digital except they have a certain look to them that is very attractive. MF has an amazing pedigree.
Agreed.
If anybody is in Chicago and wants to look at some medium format, 4x5 or 8x10 film on a light table, message me. It's really not possible to even try to describe the amount of detail that can be captured in medium and large formats cameras. Once you see it, it all makes sense.
Large format sheet film is a very "special" experience, on this I can agree. They capture astounding amount of detail. But this is on a whole different scale than MF 60x45mm film or digital backs. And it's on another planet, in terms of cost. I don't care about your 50$ fleabay projector, look at the total cost of ownership/uage in stead.
Pull a hundred (or a few hundred, including all the missed attempts) 4x5 and 8x10 PER YEAR, twenty large blowups (including the botched attempts, maybe 50) and look at your TCP, total end cost of product.
It's definitely not something the average non-millionaire would do without having to take second mortgage on the house. I know of one large format specialist that actually did a one-off order for two low-resolution large format digital backs, at 150.000USD. According to his budget, he then balanced that cost just by the decrease in cost for polaroids and botched shots. In three years. He only used the back for setting up shots, he didn't use it for taking actual photographs. That should put some perspective on the economics behind large format analog photography today.
nugeny wrote:
Nikon D800/d800E seems to play this role? I don't see a future for any MF=medium format, do you?
I'm not even going to bother reading the other posts. This has to be one of the least intelligent posts you've ever put up. I mean really? I'm afraid you just don't get it. Would you say the same if a camera phone had a 16 MP sensor? Do you really think it would replace the D4?
nugeny wrote:
Nikon D800/d800E seems to play this role? I don't see a future for any MF=medium format, do you?
It is a different format... That is like saying since micro four thirds reached 16mp there is no need for APS-C anymore. Not true, because its not just about the number of pixels, its the whole system.
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!
If by AA you mean Ansel Adams. You're wrong again. Where are you getting this stuff? Adams carried his gear up and down the mountains and terrain for many years. It wasn't until he was getting on in years that he resorted to creating a platform on the top of his Cadillac woodie. It wasn't a truck. He didn't use the bed of a truck.
nugeny wrote:
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.......
You're posting an opinion without backing it up with facts. In other words, its just BS.
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..
The thread is only provocative because you're posting statements that have no basis in fact. Its obvious that your knowledge base when it comes to photography is extemely limited.
Saying the 35mm is going to kill medium format is like saying the small sensors in future camera phones will beat beat the 35mm dSLR's in terms of image quality.
honorerdieu wrote:
Saying the 35mm is going to kill medium format is like saying the small sensors in future camera phones will beat beat the 35mm dSLR's in terms of image quality.
Finally a sensible post.
MP is a commodity. IQ is not.
honorerdieu wrote:
Saying the 35mm is going to kill medium format is like saying the small sensors in future camera phones will beat beat the 35mm dSLR's in terms of image quality.
It's not the same. If you put a $2000 lens designed specfically for it on a phone imager and give it a DSLR/MFD quality quantization and processing chain, then there's no reason you can't get the same quality image. The sensitivity will be low and exposures long though, so it may not be practical for hand held use. Clearly not suitable for use in a phone, so what's limiting is the physical form factor, battery, lens, budget, assembly tolerances, and the need to be usable without a tripod.
A 35mm DSLR is not to MFD like a phone is to 35mm. Different instruments for different purposes (making phone calls and taking handheld snapshots vs making photographs). Non sequitur.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
It's not the same. If you put a $2000 lens designed specfically for it on a phone imager and give it a DSLR/MFD quality quantization and processing chain, then there's no reason you can't get the same quality image.
No. You won't get the same images quality. What all you geniuses seem to forget is that all pixels are NOT created EQUAL.!! A larger sensor can have larger photosites.
Osai wrote:
No. You won't get the same images quality. What all you geniuses seem to forget is that all pixels are NOT created EQUAL.!! A larger sensor can have larger photosites.
I bought into the idea of fat pixels rule all a few years ago but the MFDB makers certainly don't seem scared to put smaller and smaller pixels in their backs. Larger pixels doesn't necessarily result in better quality, look at the NEX-7 vs the A900 for example. DSLRs are the jacks of all trades. They focus on versatility rather than pure image quality. That is why they aren't quite as good as MFDB based systems.
I don't think 35mm will ever kill MF. MF will kill MF if they don't advance the bodies and increase their user base. If Nikon and Canon wanted to they could completely erode the "low end" MF market. All that is required are new studio DSLR cameras that have leaf shutter lens options and better low iso performance at the expense of high iso performance. I'm surprised that Nikon hasn't introduced such lenses before now.
alundeb wrote:
Really nice. What Camera, lens and aperture?
Thanks. Mamiya 645 with the 80 1.9 wide open.
Back on the conversation, of course ALL formats are always pushing more megapixels and better image quality, but I'll take the largest sensor size (in digital please) that I can afford any day. Does anyone care to compare the latest and greatest 16 mp m4/3 camera against my 5 year old 12 mp D3?
While we're at it, my iPhone has just as much resolution as my old 1D2... Why are we still using DSLRs again? (insert sarcasm font)
There is a sweet spot between depth of field and diffraction. Wouldn't medium format require a smaller apertures to achieve the same depth of field of 35mm? Wouldn't diffraction reduce advantages in resolution?
