routlaw
Member
I've been saying this for years too, way too much attention to the amount of pixels at the cost of other factors not the least of which might be better cameras for this format. But numbers seem to rule out, same thing with the 35 mm DSLR's and why I have never bought the D800/810 series. The pixels are just too small for landscape work and the requisite DOF needed. I would rather stitch several Df or D4 frames together if I need a larger file. Note I don't own a MF digital camera or back, though I have used them on a few occasions. But am willing to admits the Pentax 645z certainly has me interested.Paul..... I also use Focus Magic and I have purchased Piccure+ but don't use it much. I find Topaz 'Infocus' and Focus Magic solve my sharpening issues. As I mentioned none of this is visible in print and for me its all about the print - and I have a sense that you also have the print as a major goal. Right now things are just fine at f11 so the 100MP back has worked out well for me. I would always trade some diffraction for added pixels. My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction. From my perspective I wish they would just stop here and work on added features/improvements to the current sensor size.
Victor
As for prints not exhibiting the diffraction issue I can certainly see it. Even with my Nikon 16 MP cameras I don't venture past F11 and try if possible to maintain a smaller F stop. Something else that doesn't get discussed often that exacerbates this situation is the fact that few, very few, lenses perform their best at the smaller apertures with performance easily degrading by past F8.
Makes a guy almost want to go back to using film for this type of photography, and I've certainly considered more than once.