Interesting comparisons, the P21 & 1DS3 quickly make the cut in terms of resolution but I think to draw more conclussions you have to take into account the difference of coverage between the P21 and the 1DS3. I would argue that if you put a lens on the 1Ds3 that had the same effective coverage as the 80mm on the P21 sensor the resulting increase in magnification would yield more pixels to record the same object and possibly make the 1DS3 the top choice in terms of resolution.
I am actually far more encouraged by the sample image for the 1DS3 in dpreview than the ones Canon published. It seems that it may be possible to make 20x30 or 20x20 prints at 185dpi on an Epson LF printer and get acceptable results from this camera (not something I can really do with a 5D).
Of course a 39 megapixel back is going to outresolve the Canon 1Ds3. The question is how does the Canon's resolution compare to a 22 megapixel MF digital back? The Canon costs $8,000, including camera, and is A LOT more convenient, with a lot more lens choices than any MFDB. The 39 megapixel backs are about $30T, and much bigger and heavier than a Canon. The 22 megapixel backs, like a P25 cost over $20T, so again no contest on price, but the Canon is looking like it will resolve close to a P25, but lose out on dynamic range. For those of us who are used to shooting slide film, and who like the convenience and weight of the Canon, and who like saving over $20T (taking into account the cost of a comparable medium format system), there's no contest. I'll best medium format back sales are going to plummet. Especially, now that they've gone into this weird turf war of closing systems that Hasselblad initiated. The last man standing in the medium format turf wars will be -- Canon (or Nikon when it comes out with the D3x). Medium format is going to be relegated to even more of a niche role. Now it's time for Canon to update the tilt shift lens and to put the nail in the coffin.
eronald wrote:
I have an 80mm Mamiya lens in front of a P45+. It's clear that the lens is outresolved by the sensor at infinity - a lot of detail pops out after sharpening. Or else, maybe my back's focus plane is set off.
Even so, I would be surprised if there were any contest between this back and the new Canon.
Used P45 @ ~$16,500
Used P30 @ ~$11,500
Used P25 @ ~$12,000
Those are refurbished units from an authorized Phase dealer with the basic 1 year warranty (not the value added). The starting price will be higher, but that's about where you'll end up depending on mount, age of the unit and payment terms.
Yeah, but the Phase One '+' backs are still a lot more expensive. Those are the non-plus backs, and those can be found pretty cheap.
I'd still want a P45+ over a cheaper P45 if I were to jump to MF, because until the MF backs go to 70MP, right now it costs too much for too little. The new + backs seem to resolve more detail, or people have just found them to be sharper.
httivals wrote:
The 22 megapixel backs, like a P25 cost over $20T, so again no contest on price,
Well I have heard of refurbished P25s going for around $10K, and the same goes for backs from other brands. The Canon is really NOT a lot cheaper. Yes, there are more lenses, but how may of them will work well with this sensor?
Apart from that there are the non-sensor related differences which will make people select one or the other. Canon has the faster frame rate, better high ISO and convenience. Medium format has higher flash sync speed, larger viewfinders, easier-to-clean sensors, ability to use back on view camera, etc
It's pretty obvious that the next ZD in about 2 years will have a 39 MP chip in it. This will give it usable 400 ISO and a body size pretty much equivalent to today's Canon, presumably with a price of around $10K; it's inevitable that as sensor prices sink MF will slowly come into its own again, at least in the boutique upmarket landscape/ fashion/portrait/commercial sector.
Edmund
httivals wrote:
The Canon costs $8,000, including camera, and is A LOT more convenient, with a lot more lens choices than any MFDB. The 39 megapixel backs are about $30T, and much bigger and heavier than a Canon.
...and in that same 2 year time frame we will start seeing some major full frame 35mm competition between Canon, Nikon and Sony so that $10K price is going to be competing with $2500-$5000 FF 35's by then. The botique, high end upmarket segment you mention will never get cheap enough as there is simply too little competiton there coupled with much much lower production numbers. At some point, I expect Canon and Nikon to hit the market with a new line of super high resolution prime lenses which can handle future sensor resolutions. Technology marches on and its going to be a tough road going forward for MF makers.
eronald wrote:
It's pretty obvious that the next ZD in about 2 years will have a 39 MP chip in it. This will give it usable 400 ISO and a body size pretty much equivalent to today's Canon, presumably with a price of around $10K; it's inevitable that as sensor prices sink MF will slowly come into its own again, at least in the boutique upmarket landscape/ fashion/portrait/commercial sector.
It's obviously unfair to compare used prices to new prices. The used MFDBs are also a very quickly depreciating asset, especially when they're already a generation behind state of the art. The Canon 1DsIII should hold its value well for at least 2 years, so it would only cost you about $1,000 - $1,500 per year, at most, in depreciation.
. . . Predicting 3-5 years out is obviously speculative. My speculation is that there will be foveon-type sensors in full frame 35mm format. This will place much less stress on lenses. A 12 megapixel full frame, foveon type sensor (36 megapixel if you count each site 3 times), should place no more stress on a lens' resolving power than a 5D, and should resolve at or around an equivalent of 25 megapixels. The AA filter should be much weaker because there's no color aliasing to worry about, only grayscale/diagonal stair-step aliasing. . . Hopefully we'll see this by the time Canon comes out with a 1DsIV or Nikon comes out with a D4. I'm not the only dreamer in this dream -- I recall Thom Hogan having written something similar recently on his website. . . . Whoever gets there first with a great product at a competitive price -- Canon or Nikon -- will be the market leader for the next round, which could last an awful long time.
I believe the price of MF backs will come down significantly, and that a successful business model can't be primarily built around profit from these items. How to build a back, specifically software, is something that needs to be learned. Once enough companies learn how to do it well, margins will fall. A 70 mp back it primarily about waiting for the hardware to be developed.
It was very difficult to build a 35mm dslr in 2000. Today any electronic company could go out and buy the talent and hardware to build a decent $1000 camera.
But will the market for mfdb be large enough to support generalized medium format products? There's always going to be a specialized need to do such things as copy work. But will the features and conveniences be enough to compete with high end 35mm? Take tilt for example. One of a few ways to get both large DOF and high res is camera movements. The solution for MF camera movements out of the studio is not good. In fact traditional 4x5 is in many ways a much more elegant solution for less controlled environments.
I think we will get 70 mp 645. But beyond that point it's unchartered territory. I'm confident that Mamiya can get to the ZD II. But at that point if Mamiya is willing to sell at a modest profit to make money on other parts, I'm not sure what happens to the rest of the market.
httivals wrote:
It's obviously unfair to compare used prices to new prices. The used MFDBs are also a very quickly depreciating asset, especially when they're already a generation behind state of the art. The Canon 1DsIII should hold its value well for at least 2 years, so it would only cost you about $1,000 - $1,500 per year, at most, in depreciation.
. . . Predicting 3-5 years out is obviously speculative. My speculation is that there will be foveon-type sensors in full frame 35mm format. This will place much less stress on lenses. A 12 megapixel full frame, foveon type sensor (36 megapixel if you count each site 3 times), should place no more stress on a lens' resolving power than a 5D, and should resolve at or around an equivalent of 25 megapixels. The AA filter should be much weaker because there's no color aliasing to worry about, only grayscale/diagonal stair-step aliasing. . . Hopefully we'll see this by the time Canon comes out with a 1DsIV or Nikon comes out with a D4. I'm not the only dreamer in this dream -- I recall Thom Hogan having written something similar recently on his website. . . . Whoever gets there first with a great product at a competitive price -- Canon or Nikon -- will be the market leader for the next round, which could last an awful long time....Show more →
The back makers trade-in policy has made for an artificial market. They've probably released the trade-in backs to retain the lower end of the market. The oligopoly that has created the apparent collusion in this market will eventually collapse.
One way to look at the true price of new backs is upgrade price + plus wholesale price of old (traded in) back. This is the amount of cash the back maker got from the sale of a new back to an existing user.
I don't agree with your technical analysis of a foeveon type sensor.
httivals wrote:
Of course a 39 megapixel back is going to outresolve the Canon 1Ds3. The question is how does the Canon's resolution compare to a 22 megapixel MF digital back? The Canon costs $8,000, including camera, and is A LOT more convenient, with a lot more lens choices than any MFDB. The 39 megapixel backs are about $30T, and much bigger and heavier than a Canon. The 22 megapixel backs, like a P25 cost over $20T, so again no contest on price, but the Canon is looking like it will resolve close to a P25, but lose out on dynamic range. For those of us who are used to shooting slide film, and who like the convenience and weight of the Canon, and who like saving over $20T (taking into account the cost of a comparable medium format system), there's no contest. I'll best medium format back sales are going to plummet. Especially, now that they've gone into this weird turf war of closing systems that Hasselblad initiated. The last man standing in the medium format turf wars will be -- Canon (or Nikon when it comes out with the D3x). Medium format is going to be relegated to even more of a niche role. Now it's time for Canon to update the tilt shift lens and to put the nail in the coffin. ...Show more →
when you look at the cost of the constant upgrading that 35mm shooter seem to do, at the end of the day, i'm not so sure that going the dslr route is as "inexpensive" relative to mf digital as people think. i also think that the value added warranty availability, as well as trade in programs also are benefits that mfdigital offers over nikon and canon. i would not characterize the evolving changes going on in the mf sector as a turf war.: it about companies trying to figure out the best way for them to survive and prosper--we may not agree with the course they have each decided to take, but one thing is clear, the mf sector understands and has understood for a while that things cannot remain the same.
it is so interesting when this topic comes up that it always seems to come down to one system or the other , but not both. the fact is there are things that each can do and do well, but neither system is perfect. I would hope the nails are never driven in an alternative format, and you should hope the same as it would mean narrower choice for the end user and less pressure on manufacturers.
as for the mfdb setup being heavier than the canon, i just picked up the mamiya 645afd2 with an 80mm lens and a leaf digital back and the 1ds3 with a 50L and there ain't that much difference in weight.
regards
Speculation and more speculation - all we can know is what we have today. If you want versatility then the 1ds3 makes a good account of itself against 22mp MF . If you want ultimate resolution go with a big MP MF back. In a few years time Mamiya maybe history and 55mp backs may be the next benchmark in resolution.
There is a very revealing article in the January/February issue of Photo Techniques magazine. The author did a very thorough job of comparing the 1Ds3 to the Hasselblad H3 (Hasselblad lens and back) and the H2 with a Phase One P45+ back with Hasselblad lenses and a modern Linhof view camera with the P45 back and Rodenstock lenses.
As expected, the Canon came in fourth but did itself proud when compared to these very expensive cameras with 39 Mpx. A strange and unexpected result was how much better the H2 was compared to the H3. The Phase One back is much better than the equivalent Hasselblad 39Mpx back. Same Hasselblad lens used for both bodies so the only real difference was the back. Finally, the view camera with the Rodenstock lens and PhaseOne back blew everything else away. So it is clear that the new MF backs need all the lens quality one can get. The author is going to do a follow up at some point using Schneider Digitar lenses on the Linhof.
Man we may be spending some serious coin going this route.
shirozina wrote:
If you want ultimate resolution go with a big MP MF back.
or just stitch a quick few frames I do this all the time, in a studio or natural light situation, it works pretty good Probably not so well for portraits though. A quick grid of images can easily out resolve my 4x5 for landscapes! I suppose you could do this with the MF gear as well
The big news here is that while 35mm digital continues to encroach on MF territory, final output needs haven't changed much. A job that twenty years ago required medium format can now be done with the same system you use to shoot football. The continuing need for medium format is surely dwindling, isn't it? And as that market gets smaller and smaller, it is harder for its players not to fall further behind with their technology. Whoever said 'expect better Nikon and Canon tilt/shift lenses' hit the nail on the head. Nikon and Canon do seem to be aware of the need for better glass. That's why they keep announcing stuff like new 14mm L, Nikkor 14-24 and so on. It's already in the shops.
What I am looking forward to is a camera that repeatedly samples while moving the sensor through a known locus of positions. We already have vibrating sensors so data throughput is the only remaining obstacle. A sensor that records continuously while vibrating through known positions can use the time domain to overcome the Bayer problem, the moire problem and the cell density limit in one fell swoop. Call it a 'micro-scanning' sensor. I invented that during a discussion here a few months ago ;-) It will come.
brainiac wrote:
What I am looking forward to is a camera that repeatedly samples while moving the sensor through a known locus of positions. We already have vibrating sensors so data throughput is the only remaining obstacle. A sensor that records continuously while vibrating through known positions can use the time domain to overcome the Bayer problem, the moire problem and the cell density limit in one fell swoop. Call it a 'micro-scanning' sensor. I invented that during a discussion here a few months ago ;-) It will come.
No, I don't think so. I am not aware of a back which uses piezo electric positioning to move the sensor during the exposure. A scanning back typically scans in one direction. I am talking about moving the sensor very fast in a little circle whose diameter would be about one pixel interval (or half a pixel interval for a foveon type sensor), and recording time based sensor co-ordinates along with the image data.
The old Sinar back used to take 4 exposures in quick succession moved 1 pixel by a piezo motor in a pattern that blended the image to increase edge smoothness and reduce artefacts. Only really usable on static subjects though. It also did a single shot and vibrated the sensor to kill moire.
I do this all the time, in a studio or natural light situation, it works pretty good 
I suppose you could do this with the MF gear as well