Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Why people act like 50, and 100mp is "a lot" is beyond me.  We're on the outer fringe of Large Format performance with a 100mp sensor.  What's interesting is people will ask "what's the practical use of 100mp" and doesn't offer the performance of a sheet of film.   When we get to 300-500mp, THEN we're more firmly footed in the LF ball park.

I print LARGE often (for gallery work) and still shoot LF film for that reason (among a few others).

I could easily make use of 400mp back.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I print LARGE often (for gallery work) and still shoot LF film for that reason (among a few others).

I could easily make use of 400mp back.

Should be close enough for you
http://www.roundshot.com/xml_1/internet … 2/f123.cfm

Any reason you didn't go for Aptus-II 10R (except for it being notoriously difficult to find for sale)?

R.EYE.R wrote:
Should be close enough for you
http://www.roundshot.com/xml_1/internet … 2/f123.cfm

Any reason you didn't go for Aptus-II 10R (except for it being notoriously difficult to find for sale)?

Not everything I do is still life.

I finally went with a Credo 80!  😉 

That will be fine until we get to a 160...

Mr. Tengu wrote:
LOL... I am with you... however, my main camera is the Nikon D800e and I don't understand most of the settings... all I care about is M, f-stop, ISO, WB, shutter speed and bracketing settings.

I am not smart enough for all that fancy-shmancy gadgetry...

Chris Rifkin wrote:
Yep...same here...the basic things you need to make great images

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
More of us can relate to you than you probably think.  Thumbs up. 

Yeah, thanks Chris and Teila!

Let me clarify this a bit more... I do love the sensor and capability of my D800e, the low light performance, fast synch speed, etc., but... since I shoot 98% in Manual mode, except when I am shooting real estate interior and use bracketing or when mounting the camera on an EpicPro robotic arm.

I don't even know how to use different program modes and frankly, I don't care, because I adjust my settings depending on the feedback I am getting when setting up the values while on set or location.

Long time ago, I have read that lots of those extra gimmicks in settings are done for people who need the extra help with presets.

Many years back, I've shot also with the Rollei 6008 AF and the Phase One H20 back... although it had a huge sensor and produced about 50MB images... I have to admit that I found it to be kinda clumsy for most of the photography I was doing. Consider that I've shot even international campaigns with my Nikon D70s at 6.1MP, which I used for about 7 years.

Lot's of the super high MP technology is marketed directly to the photography enthusiast with deep pockets, who think that such a camera will make them a high end photographer. The industry needs this kind of market, because that's where the majority of the revenues come in, which helps with R&D.

You know what the advise in professional circles is about new gear? If you want to know the latest gadgets and industry development... ask a dedicated amateur and hobbyist. They are usually better informed than most working pros...

Btw., Teila, that Mr. Tengu profile is mine, it's more of a humorous profile I set up ten years ago... so... Mr. Tengu and I are the same person... in a way... LOL

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Not everything I do is still life.

I finally went with a Credo 80!  😉 

That will be fine until we get to a 160...

10R does have a bit unusual sensor, but perhaps it's not quite suitable for what you are shooting.
I was intrigued by it, but there are far more 2nd hand Phase backs available than Leaf, so I went with IQ.

CMOS sensors in MFD currently suffer from unrecoverable colour cast (cross-talk) and the issue is rather serious.
I suspect it won't be dealt with directly, but rather during the R&D process. PhaseONE did publish an article on working around the issue in post using C1, but that's pretty much it. Meanwhile, products have to be manufactured and sold, so the issue is here to stay.

Being presumptuous: New series of backs will be out in few years time, and considering SONY's pace together with Canon's 120mpx camera, I would say that 160Mpx is actually closer than we might think. It is rather unlikely that it's going to be larger than 645 size, feature slightly boosted ISO performance at the cost of being well resolving in low to mid frequencies that so far defined the medium format digital look. I would dare to say that MFD will suffer from gradual ISO50 performance degradation to warrant comparatively better performance at higher ISOs, something we have experienced with DSLRs already.

To me personally it's all a bit of a bad trade-off.

American Glamour wrote:
We were skeptical when Nikon came out with a 36mp camera. It turned out fine.

This isn't a terribly useful thing to say. What does "fine" mean? My understanding, based on shooting a roughly resolution equivalent Foveon, looking at work taken by a lot of shooters with said Nikon, and reading discussions by people who have made real use of its sensor are that away from an Otus and a heavy duty tripod - and arguably a magnifier hood for focussing - the extra resolution is wasted. Who is going to make the lenses a 150MP sensor will need to perform? How much will they weigh and cost?

thiswayup wrote:

This isn't a terribly useful thing to say. What does "fine" mean? My understanding, based on shooting a roughly resolution equivalent Foveon, looking at work taken by a lot of shooters with said Nikon, and reading discussions by people who have made real use of its sensor are that away from an Otus and a heavy duty tripod - and arguably a magnifier hood for focussing - the extra resolution is wasted. Who is going to make the lenses a 150MP sensor will need to perform? How much will they weigh and cost?

There are many, many lenses that resolve quite well on a D810 - even old, cheap ones. Maybe only at f/5.6, but that is a very, VERY far cry from all the Chicken Littles that went around telling us that we needed to buy all new glass, or else the camera would only take blurry photos.

And let's not forget that the Otus is a better lens than most anything else. It will look sharper on a D810 AND a D700, because it is a better lens.

The likelihood of those Chicken Littles being right about this camera is just as low as guys like me that are excited about it. If it comes to market, the truth will be somewhere in the middle

There was a book a while back called The Wisdom of Crowds, which had an anecdote about an agency trying to find a sunken submarine. They had a contest where the closest guess got a prize.

Nobody was close. But when they averaged everyone's guesses together, the coordinates they came up with were something like a half mile from the sub.

R.EYE.R wrote:
....
CMOS sensors in MFD currently suffer from unrecoverable colour cast (cross-talk) and the issue is rather serious.
I suspect it won't be dealt with directly, but rather during the R&D process. ....

Have you even shot with a IQ3 100MP on a technical camera using movements? Have you personally experienced a single instance of "unrecoverable color cast?  If and when you may see this is when you push beyond and use extreme movements. It's rare. And in the few instances you may see an issue not recoverable using an LCC (you are using an LCC after each shot with movements, right?) you can correct in post using tools in C1 Pro.

I simply have NOT seen an issue with "unrecoverable color cast" using the IQ3 100MP.  Not a single time.  What you do see on the internet forums are individuals pushing beyond and looking for extreme examples to show some sort of failure. It's just not typical in normal, regular use.  I use both the Phase XF and Cambo WRS technical cameras with the IQ3 100MP---no issues; it simply works.

Zack Zoll wrote:
There are many, many lenses that resolve quite well on a D810 - even old, cheap ones.

"Quite well" is meaningless.

Maybe only at f/5.6, but that is a very, VERY far cry from all the Chicken Littles that went around telling us that we needed to buy all new glass, or else the camera would only take blurry photos.

You're confusing two very different arguments

1. That pictures with the higher resolution sensor would be BLURRIER

2. That the extra sensor resolution would be WASTED

..If anyone claimed the first, they were an idiot. But I've never even seen that claim; afaik it is purely the product of your mis-comprehension. Even if someone did say it somewhere, (2) has been said often and clearly enough that you should understand the real argument.  And (2) is definitely held by high-level professionals who shoot with the D800. For example Ming Thein produces superb work with the D800, but considers it's pointless using one outside very limited parameters:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/05/r … e-quality/

And let's not forget that the Otus is a better lens than most anything else. It will look sharper on a D810 AND a D700, because it is a better lens.

Again, bad logic. It has nothing to with (2).

thiswayup wrote:

Zack Zoll wrote:
There are many, many lenses that resolve quite well on a D810 - even old, cheap ones.

"Quite well" is meaningless.

Maybe only at f/5.6, but that is a very, VERY far cry from all the Chicken Littles that went around telling us that we needed to buy all new glass, or else the camera would only take blurry photos.

You're confusing two very different arguments

1. That pictures with the higher resolution sensor would be BLURRIER

2. That the extra sensor resolution would be WASTED

..If anyone claimed the first, they were an idiot. But I've never even seen that claim; afaik it is purely the product of your mis-comprehension. Even if someone did say it somewhere, (2) has been said often and clearly enough that you should understand the real argument.  And (2) is definitely held by high-level professionals who shoot with the D800. For example Ming Thein produces superb work with the D800, but considers it's pointless using one outside very limited parameters:

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/05/r … e-quality/


Again, bad logic. It has nothing to with (2).

I'll respond in brief, as I clearly am not capable of the answers you require.

'Quite well' means that I, a LF shooter with several pieces of German glass and a reputation for being anal about various minutiae, was pleased with the results. Minolta's 50 1.7 MD was an especially good performer, particularly when stopped down.

If you need me to make an mtf chart just so you can continue to argue ... Well, I can't be arsed.

GRMACK wrote:
I had to go and look at the scores of the Otus 85mm f/1.4 on the D700 and D810 to see what difference there was.  Sort of surprising.

DxoMark scores on sharpness of Otus 85mm on D700 (12MP) verses D810 (35MP) here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-Zeis … -D700__441

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-Zeis … -D810__963

Nutshell version of above Sharpness test with 85mm Otus on D700 verses D810:
D700 = 11 P-Mpix
D810 = 35 P-Mpix

Total overall combo score:
D700 = 29
D810 = 48

If Nikon jumps up to anything over 65MP I'll bite if just for cropping ability. Less than 50MP probably not as it isn't enough from their current 36MP.

Also, they had a sidebar that the 19MP RED Epic Dragon broke their 100 sensor score (Got to 101 and current sensor leader but requires RED's own post processing software to do so..).  They put the Phase One IQ180 digital back on same level as Nikon D4 too (Score 91 vs. 89 respectively.):  http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-On … gital-Back

Thanks GR.

There's a site that lives and dies by mtf charts, and they still claim that the sharpest lens fails to even fully resolve a camera a third the resolution of what we're arguing over.

That puts the concept of 'getting full resolution' in perspective, at least for those that are willing to see perspectives.

Regardless of where you sit on the debate and what sites you frequent, it shows that there is no single specification of 'full resolution.' It just doesn't exist.

You may as well try to explain which amp hits full volume, or which car goes full speed.

I can tell you a stereo is loud enough to fuck with my inner ear and make me walk all funny(that happened once on an 80 watt amp), but you're looking for a chart that explains who walks funny at what volume.

They exist of course, but those people are all at least a little full of shit - even though most if them mean well.

TheScarletLetterSeries wrote:
Have you even shot with a IQ3 100MP on a technical camera using movements? Have you personally experienced a single instance of "unrecoverable color cast?  If and when you may see this is when you push beyond and use extreme movements. It's rare. And in the few instances you may see an issue not recoverable using an LCC (you are using an LCC after each shot with movements, right?) you can correct in post using tools in C1 Pro.

I simply have NOT seen an issue with "unrecoverable color cast" using the IQ3 100MP.  Not a single time.  What you do see on the internet forums are individuals pushing beyond and looking for extreme examples to show some sort of failure. It's just not typical in normal, regular use.  I use both the Phase XF and Cambo WRS technical cameras with the IQ3 100MP---no issues; it simply works.

In this case I have to trust you on the matter.
Edited.
Hope you don't mind me asking some questions: I just want to clear any misunderstanding on my part.

1. Would you say that example given here is extreme movement?
http://blog.phaseone.com/3-easy-steps-f … tone-tool/
2. If using 35mm lens at 8mm shift on a 100mp CMOS back extreme, what is using 23mm lens at 10mm shift on a 60mp CCD back?
3. What is the definition of normal/regular use applicable to all the photographers?
4. If you have not experienced cross-talk in your shooting, does it mean that cross-talk does not exist?
5. Does the rarity of the error occurrence make it insignificant?

udor wrote:
What is that MP fetish about...

Does a huge MP count on your camera make you feel more competent, taking better pictures, telling better stories?

as with any and all equipment choices made by a  "photographer"..

on some occasions the extra pixels or specific equipment type/brand may actually be useful and/or required

in most other instances.. it's a vital part of the  'dog & pony show'

GRMACK wrote:
I had to go and look at the scores of the Otus 85mm f/1.4 on the D700 and D810 to see what difference there was.  Sort of surprising.

DxoMark scores on sharpness of Otus 85mm on D700 (12MP) verses D810 (35MP) here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-Zeis … -D700__441

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Carl-Zeis … -D810__963

Nutshell version of above Sharpness test with 85mm Otus on D700 verses D810:
D700 = 11 P-Mpix
D810 = 35 P-Mpix

Total overall combo score:
D700 = 29
D810 = 48

If Nikon jumps up to anything over 65MP I'll bite if just for cropping ability. Less than 50MP probably not as it isn't enough from their current 36MP.

Also, they had a sidebar that the 19MP RED Epic Dragon broke their 100 sensor score (Got to 101 and current sensor leader but requires RED's own post processing software to do so..).  They put the Phase One IQ180 digital back on same level as Nikon D4 too (Score 91 vs. 89 respectively.):  http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Phase-On … gital-Back

Didn't we all have this same spin...argument when Nikon D800...36.3mp....Some want to give it at 35mp. lol

The last remaining photographers that insist on Still using 12mp cameras. Good For You...Spin Away.

But I use D810 with Sigma Art Line...And I embrace the new tech. I used to use 12mp...IT is so dated.

I can't wait when the new Sony A9 with 70-80MP Comes this year. I can't wait when Nikon introduces the D820/900 with 70-80mp.

Sony already makes a 100mp Medium Frame Sensor.

The ones who usually spin, have never had a 36mp camera in their hands. lol


And Tony Northrup, Matt Granger, The Camera Store, and others...Don't back you 12mp up. lol

TheScarletLetterSeries wrote:
1 and 2.  If you read carefully, you see that the lens used was really not intended for movements with a large sensor such as the IQ3 100. It was selected purposely to demonstrate how to correct for an issue using post processing tools in C1 Pro.  Put another way, if you can afford the IQ3 100MP, you can afford to buy the best technical camera lenses from Rodenstock with a retrofocal design and large image circles intended for movements.  If you use the lens within the confines of its specifications, you won't have issues. If you push to the limits and beyond the technical specifications (i.e., towards the lens hard disk with movements) you will get issues. It's not a surprise. It's sorta like using a DSLR beyond its limits, and then you're pissed that it doesn't perform the same (produce the same image quality) as when locked down on a tripod at 100 ISO.

2. You can't get 10mm shift from the 23mm--the image circle is too small for a FF 60MP 645 sensor. It is not appropriate. The lens is appropriate for a crop 645 sensor.  The larger the sensor, the larger the image circle you need for movements.  Go beyond the technical specifications and it generates issues.  No surprise.

3.  "Normal use" (if you can call it that) is more MFDBs with a Phase XF, (DF+ et al) or Hasselblad body.  You don't have movements with these camera bodies.  Technical cameras excel at the wide angles and have the ability of movements, and there are a much smaller number of technical camera users (Alpa, Cambo, Arca).

4.  "Cross talk" may exist but is rare, and more likely to raise its head on the internet forums than in actual use. It simply is not an issue in everyday shooting.  Issues you read about on the forums are mostly from those who seek to push the envelope to see what issues can occur. It's not a typical experience by far.

And yes, rarity does mean it is an insignificant issue. I use both the XF and Cambo technical camera (with movements) and have had zero issues. At our last workshop, we had probably no less than six IQ3 100MP digital backs in use (not to mention dozens of other IQ series backs) and not a single instance of "cross talk." It wasn't an issue that even came up.
Actually, looking back over the past ten years that I have used MFDBs (645M, P30, P45+, P65+, IQ180, and IQ3 100), I haven't experienced this phenomenon called "cross talk." I'm sure it must exist because I've read about it on the forums, but must be pretty rare. I've also read about unicorns.  ; )

Operate within the limits of your equipment and difficulties/issues become really rare.

Thank you for clarifying, it is interesting to hear from IQ3 user first hand. You do bring valid points.
Observe, this is not a 100mp back bashing, but assessment of increasing megapixel count on the same Bayer CFA sensor.

1. Fair point on lens usage. Though I am disregarding from "if you can afford the IQ3 100MP, you can afford to buy the best technical camera lenses from Rodenstock" argument due to speculative nature of it.
For instance, I could afford IQ160, but never AlpaSWA + Rodie 23 on top of it.

2. Not entirely convinced as I can't seem to find technical info on the discontinued lens.
As far as I know, 24mm has a smaller image circle barely covering 39mpx, 23mm does allow for quite some movement on the other hand.
One of my acquaintances is shooting 23 on Alpa SWA so I probably need to check with him. (More so for myself as I am researching for my Alpa purchase).

3. That's pretty much what I was referring to - "if you can call it that". Architectural and interior photography as well as certain cases in product photography do take advantage of shifts, though of course "extensive" and "extreme" is a subjective definition. Normal is a subjective definition, and thus can't be used as an argument.

4. Cross-talk is something CMOS backs suffer from more than older backs. You must be browsing relevant forums, so you probably saw a post by Torger who brings up very valid points. It raises questions on sensor design as well as lens design for pixel pitch at 6um and smaller from which you can easily draw parallels with 135 format.

To sum it up: subjectively - ILCC may or may not be important for some compared to others. Objectively - it's there.
Can it be addressed? Very likely. Realistically - a company will downplay impact of any issue to protect profits.
Centrefold, tiling, and blooming were also issues, if you remember earlier backs. All these issues were worked out more or less. So, until ILCC is there, I am not game (personal opinion).

Zack Zoll wrote:
If this hits production it will sell, almost regardless of cost or speed. Even if it costs $20,000, I suspect many MF shooters would be willing to pay that for only using a single system - assuming DR is at least as good as the 5D, even if it needs to be shot at 100.

I doubt MF shooters will switch to 35mm, definitely not if it's 20K, unless they get sponsorship (like Peter Hurley, he switched to Canon from Phase One for this reason).

jesse wrote:

I doubt MF shooters will switch to 35mm, definitely not if it's 20K, unless they get sponsorship (like Peter Hurley, he switched to Canon from Phase One for this reason).

I know MF shooters that switched to the D800. Several, in fact - though that is still a small sample size.

It all depends on whether you shoot MF because you want the most, or just more than 35mm has.

A D810 won't do what a modern MF will do, but it will certainly do what an older one will do.

R.EYE.R wrote:
....
1. Fair point on lens usage. Though I am disregarding from "if you can afford the IQ3 100MP, you can afford to buy the best technical camera lenses from Rodenstock" argument due to speculative nature of it.
For instance, I could afford IQ160, but never AlpaSWA + Rodie 23 on top of it.
.....

The point being is you simply need to use the proper equipment. If you use a lens that was not designed to be used on a particular sensor or in a particular manner, it's unreasonable to then blame the MFDB or sensor. When the IQ180 was released, the Schneider 35, a previously well-respected lens, was universally rejected for use with this new MFDB. You may be able to use older Schneider or Rodenstock designs, but don't expect movements or stellar performance on par with the HR32, HR40, or HR90.  It's the same rationale of those using professional Canon FF DSLRs to lean heavily towards "L glass" to extract the best performance and image quality, and ostensibly why Canon updates L glass to keep up with current and future technology.

In a nutshell---- If you want to find issues (with any camera system/format) you can find it. The reality is that the sky is not falling.  Far from it.

udor wrote:
What is that MP fetish about... is everybody who uses a gazillion MP resolution a scientist who needs to replace an electron microscope with their handheld camera?

Does a huge MP count on your camera make you feel more competent, taking better pictures, telling better stories?

I am not the smartest light bulb in the milk carton... so, please explain to me how a gazillion MP's will take your photographic story telling into artistic stratospheres!

Please... because I am lost about masturbation with Megapixels! 

I has nothing to do with resolution (after a point) it has to do with a different look due to sensor size - that's why I want a larger sensor instead of one with higher resolution.

I hated, HATED, 35mm when shooting film, preferring instead 6x7 or large format.  It wasn't just because those formats provided better resolution.  It's that the whole process (for me) was better.  Higher resolution, better aspect ratio, the ability to use the movements available to me on a technical camera), better glass, better enlargements and what I perceive to be a more refined look.  All of these factors are still in play today with digital, though the look is a bit of compromise because of the 645 sensor size which is barely medium format, though it's still better than 35mm to my eye.  There is also more bit depth to a MF sensor, you get smoother gradations.  That may be changing with new DSLRs, but when I started shooting MFD it was very obvious.  There is a reason that, for the most part, the only people shooting 35mm were photojournalists (including runway shooters, sports shooters, etc.) and hobbyists. 

As far as resolution goes, because of my printing needs I like the higher resolution.  I often print four feet on a side and have seen people walk right up to a print in a gallery and inspect the quality inches away, even though the piece is meant to be viewed and a normal viewing distance.  Even with an 80MP back, I still have to use a heavy tripod, shoot with mirror lockup and a cable release.  That's why I still shoot LF film and why, if shooting digital, I pair the back with an RZ67ProIID - the resolving power and sharpness of those lenses are insane and I can blow up the image to the size I want without loosing too much detail.  The quality at that level can determine whether someone buys a print for $5K or walks away.

TheScarletLetterSeries wrote:
The point being is you simply need to use the proper equipment. If you use a lens that was not designed to be used on a particular sensor or in a particular manner, it's unreasonable to then blame the MFDB or sensor. When the IQ180 was released, the Schneider 35, a previously well-respected lens, was universally rejected for use with this new MFDB. You may be able to use older Schneider or Rodenstock designs, but don't expect movements or stellar performance on par with the HR32, HR40, or HR90.  It's the same rationale of those using professional Canon FF DSLRs to lean heavily towards "L glass" to extract the best performance and image quality, and ostensibly why Canon updates L glass to keep up with current and future technology.

In a nutshell---- If you want to find issues (with any camera system/format) you can find it. The reality is that the sky is not falling.  Far from it.

Obviously, using an "under par" lens will never take full advantage of sensor.
In addition to that, Rodenstock/Schneider lenses have more/less preferable items depending on the sensor. Which was one of the points on 6um backs Torger brought up.
To quote (actually in support of your statement): "...with the as-little-retrofocus-as-possible principle this means that even the only slightly smaller pixel on the 80MP Dalsa (5.2um) get some issues with the Digarons, but not as bad as with the Sony CMOS." and to jump to the conclusion he makes "So either Sony needs to come up with light shielded pixels or other technology to reduce the crosstalk, or even the Rodies will grow obsolete and fade away just as the SK Digitar series have.”

I can't quite accept Canon-L reference as objective either because it is building on an hypothetical formula: "technology is moving forward, therefore new products must be better". DSLR manufacturing is just as a profit driven business as any other and shareholders do not forgive losses all while capitalist needs to minimise spending and maximise profits, therefore the company pretty much resorts to churning out items with 1 more bell and 1 more whistle than previous model (something you can see with 5D, 5DMkII and 5DMkIII on Canon side and D800, D810, D600, D610 on Nikon side).

Granted, 70-200/2.8L MkII finally reached the perfection and there are few more improvements in the line-up, however it would be erroneous to take is as a baseline for Canon's final and definite success. Equally, current technology can not be assessed by estimation of forthcoming advances alone.

The sky is absolutely not falling as you rightfully observed, but it's not a photographer's utopian paradise either.

anchev wrote:

The right question is - does it ship with a box of hard drives and RAM

LOL

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
What happened to people who think 20MP is enough?


I have no interest in a 100MP+ camera on a 35mm sensor. 

What we need is a 6x7 sensor with 200MP+ at $8K or less (of course I am dreaming).

They tried a 50Mpixel body and their heads exploded :-)

udor wrote:
To no one in particular... although I own a Nikon D800e now... just a few years back, I still shot international campaigns with my D70s at 6.1MP with images used for print and large posters, hanging in stores, etc.

A common argument is that you can crop closely, etc., but, people... c'mon... how often do you need close cropping of images that you can blow up to life size dimensions? You can do that with your existing equipment... do you really go so close to a poster of that size that you get goosebumps when you can see the blackheads on the model in the picture

No matter how many MPs you have... a shit picture that tells nothing is still a shit picture... and cropping into the crap doesn't make it better. Frame your image, composition it properly and you'll be fine.

A great picture, with extreme high resolution won't be blown up to cover a side of the Empire State Building, no matter what.

What is that MP fetish about... is everybody who uses a gazillion MP resolution a scientist who needs to replace an electron microscope with their handheld camera?

Does a huge MP count on your camera make you feel more competent, taking better pictures, telling better stories?

I am not the smartest light bulb in the milk carton... so, please explain to me how a gazillion MP's will take your photographic story telling into artistic stratospheres!

Please... because I am lost about masturbation with Megapixels! 

This started off sounding like reasonable questions, but got increasingly insulting until the last line - how about you edit the post and remove that?

I choose to use as many pixels as I can get in a 35mm body. I don't insist you follow my route, but I do request you not be rude about my choice. If you don't want to use a lot of pixels, you are completely free not to.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
This started off sounding like reasonable questions, but got increasingly insulting until the last line - how about you edit the post and remove that?

I choose to use as many pixels as I can get in a 35mm body. I don't insist you follow my route, but I do request you not be rude about my choice. If you don't want to use a lot of pixels, you are completely free not to.

Did I hit a nerve?

I know Giacomo and his work and he explained his reasoning and it makes perfectly sense.

Your reaction and "just because!" explanation and hurt feelings might be an indication that you belong to the group of people who believe more is never overkill..., more is always better and besides that, you don't really know.

GRMACK wrote:

Could be this:  http://thenewcamera.com/nikon-d850-rumo … ification/

70-80 MP seems possible this year.

Mars Rover - 2mp
Hubble Telescope - 16mp

Some people just can do more with less

hbutz New York wrote:

Mars Rover - 2mp
Hubble Telescope - 16mp

Some people just can do more with less

Thank you! 

M3_Photography wrote:
Jamming more pixels on a smaller chip isn't going to best MF.

I compared a 24MP Canon sub-FF to a 22MP Mamiya MF, even though the Mamiya/Leaf system was much older, sensor size made all the difference in what I was looking for. (What good is a lot of horsepower if the car can't handle the turns?)

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
The ones who usually spin, have never had a 36mp camera in their hands. lol

Well... my main camera is the Nikon D800e with 36MP... my second camera is the D7000 with 16MP...

I have to tell you, for some of my work... I find the D800 to be overkill in terms of size, etc., and will shoot with the 16MP camera...

A K Nicholas - Art Nude Images wrote:

I compared a 24MP Canon sub-FF to a 22MP Mamiya MF, even though the Mamiya/Leaf system was much older, sensor size made all the difference in what I was looking for. (What good is a lot of horsepower if the car can't handle the turns?)

That's a pretty big difference in sensor size, and potentionally lens quality. Mind you, I'm not disagreeing in the least.

Unless you were after super shallow DOF, I think you'd find that a FF camera would be a closer match, especially with L lenses or similar.

I would liken sensor improvement to film improvement. It's not exactly the same, since sensors are developed independently, while film is a single new recipe, cut to size - but it's close enough to be analogous.

Way back when(say, pre-war), film was terrible by modern standards. Aside from photojournalism and other historical images, 90% of what we know was shot large format. At the time, it was necessary for good quality.

By the 60s, film stocks had improved drastically. 120 looked as good as 4x5 used to, 35mm was now a viable option, and it started to be uncommon for people to use cameras larger than 8x10 anymore.

Today, film stocks are better still - to the point where outside of those printing as large as Giacomo, relatively few people shoot 8x10. Even MF looks as good as Weston or Stieglitz's old work, provided it is very carefully processed and printed at the same size as the old work.

35mm doesn't look like LF, but that's a pretty enormous leap to make; proportionally, that's like comparing a phone to a  FF DMF camera.

And you could at least shoot Weegie images on 35mm.

I can come up with a long list of names of people that still use giant formats, because they are still better. I can come up with an equally long list of names of people that use formats that are 'historically inferior', because they are more than sufficient for what they do.

The point to all if this is that even though larger formats will always be superior to smaller ones, it is naive to say that they will always be superior for everyone , and that their market share will not keep shrinking.

Hell, look at speakers! Back in the 70s everyone had huge speakers, because little ones sucked. Today, they don't. A lot of people still have huge speakers, but most people traded their end table-sized speakers for soundbars and SONOS systems. They don't sound as good as modern giant speakers, but they sound every bit as good as most of those giant guys from the 70s did.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Canon hasn't been the 'best' at anything in several years. They've been 'best in class', but the only 'best' they've had recently is the 50mp 5D, and that's only what, 15% more than Sony? Enough to brag, but not enough to rest on.

When the 5dMk2 came out even Nikon people were switching to Canon. I'd say that is something that matters

udor wrote:
Many years back, I've shot also with the Rollei 6008 AF and the Phase One H20 back... although it had a huge sensor and produced about 50MB images... I have to admit that I found it to be kinda clumsy for most of the photography I was doing. Consider that I've shot even international campaigns with my Nikon D70s at 6.1MP, which I used for about 7 years.

Given that you're not a studio shooter, this makes sense (your level of comfort).  If you were already used to using MF and LF film, or if you worked in a high-end product studio where this was required, you would probably feel differently about it - much as I do when shooting small format. 

udor wrote:
Lot's of the super high MP technology is marketed directly to the photography enthusiast with deep pockets, who think that such a camera will make them a high end photographer. The industry needs this kind of market, because that's where the majority of the revenues come in, which helps with R&D.

This may be true for the DSLR market, but it certainly is not true for the MFDB market.  The amateurs shooting high end backs are doing it because they shoot landscape for gallery work.  Everyone else using them are, as you like to say, working pros. 

udor wrote:
You know what the advise in professional circles is about new gear? If you want to know the latest gadgets and industry development... ask a dedicated amateur and hobbyist. They are usually better informed than most working pros...

Perhaps we know different "working pros."  Again, I only find this among mid-teir guys.  When I talk to seasoned photographers, and cinematographers for that matter, they are all VERY well versed in the technology and most of them are on the cutting edge of it.  Even those still working in film.  The only caveat to this are strict art shooters, most of whom are still shooting LF film and have no toes dipped in the commercial realm (which does not mean they are not a commercial success as art shooters - Crewdson's work, for example, was selling for $40K a print).

udor wrote:
Lot's of the super high MP technology is marketed directly to the photography enthusiast with deep pockets, who think that such a camera will make them a high end photographer. The industry needs this kind of market, because that's where the majority of the revenues come in, which helps with R&D.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
This may be true for the DSLR market, but it certainly is not true for the MFDB market.  The amateurs shooting high end backs are doing it because they shoot landscape for gallery work.  Everyone else using them are, as you like to say, working pros.

Yes, absolutely!

Two or three years ago, I was attending a panel discussion at the Photo Expo in the Javits Center and the topic was the future of photography. Several big wigs from all the major brands were attending and this point was discussed... The panel stated that the majority of their revenues that goes back into R&D to improve gear (including the MF categories) comes from the hobbyist sector... Although the revenues come from the DSLR market... the revenues flow back to the R&D of the entire tech development.

The reason is that the purely professional market is just not big enough to finance it's own R&D... how many people out there are actually buying $50K camera bodies... not too many... but there are enough enthusiasts that purchase high end cameras as soon as they become available.

Not every working pro is buying the next hot thing as soon as it's on the market. It usually takes a longer cycle until they are going to upgrade, because they make, what they have work, because they know what they are doing.

Heck... I got a great deal on my D800e, because the owner, an IT executive, put less than 5K actuations on it... but the D810 came out... and he "had to upgrade".

hbutz New York wrote:
Mars Rover - 2mp
Hubble Telescope - 16mp

Some people just can do more with less

If Hubble telescope could do more than 16MP, they would.  The problem was, technology wasn't there when Hubble went up.  And back then, 16MP was considered as a lot.  My take is that eventually, Hubble will be upgrading to one of those that can do 100MP+.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It's much the same way as how one restaurant might earn two grand selling reasonably priced meals to 100 people, and another earns it selling fancy meals to 20 people. You still make two grand, but the clientele - and thus the expectations - are different.

Granted, but I didn't invent those economics. I was relating what VP's of Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc., were talking about at the panel discussion, where their revenues are coming from, and where that money goes to in R&D in their companies and how those revenues help to lower the overall costs for the high end, very expensive professional equipment.

To me, it made sense and I have no reason to discount what those executives said about their business.


P.S.: I don't know what that "Two Blondes" references meant. I am not familiar with that expression.