Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
At usual taking apertures this sounds about right - although I did stitch two 8x10's together recently for a potential 8m x 3m print.¿Does this more or less confirm my thought that a top-end ¿MS? MF back with a top lens, hex-stitched to give 4 times the Mp is somewhere near equivalent to 10 * 8?
I must admit I think it would be very interesting to see a larger sensor. 6x7 starts to become quite attractive in terms of lens design and hopefully pixel density can come down too. The IQ180 definitely seems like a watershed sensor for me in terms of the overall look. I'd be happier with a 40mp with that look than an 80mp version of the old Phase P45+ (ignoring the long exposure stuff).I think that a 60MP 6x7 sensor on an RZ would have been a far more interesting step up than going from 60MP to 80MP on a sub 645 sensor.
Hell even a 40MP on an RZ 6x7.
It should be possible to buid an Aptus 22 sensor twice the size for say 3 times the price. The Aptus sensor is already made from tiles.
I have to disagree with that. A truly high resolution landscape print, for example, is much more appealing than a low resolution version with lots of grain or pixelation. I would agree that it matters more for some types of photography than others but at the end of the day, you can never go back and add resolution, but you can always remove it if you feel it improves the image.Resolution will not add interest.
I wouldn't say it's the most valuable thing, and for many or even most assignments 30MP would be more than enough. However, if you can only have one camera, I'd want one which could deliver the extra resolution when needed. For me 40MP would be enough, but the only 645 sensor option for my camera was 80MP so that's why I personally ended up with that option.Hi Graham
I am asking why do you think it is valuable for the vast majority of Photographers - even actual Medium Format users to shoot all and every image larger than 60x70cm at 300 dpi all the time.
Out of interest, what apertures do you typically use on each of these platforms?In my experience with 4x5", I find it difficult in practice to extract more detail than I would with my Mamiya 7 kit out in the field. In most situations diffraction limits resolution and slower shutter speeds are needed to achieve the desired DOF (when movements aren't appropriate.) It all adds up to mean that 4x5" may equal or sometimes even lack the resolving "bite" of the 6x7cm but tonality is sure better on the larger format.
When shooting 6x7cm (Mamiya 7II with 80mm, 65mm and 50mm lenses) I try not to go smaller than f11. I'll go half a stop smaller if really needed but it softens details quite quickly from there on. On 4x5" I'll shoot around f22 using 150mm and 90mm lenses. Most of the subjects I shoot are too three dimensional to use tilt movements, so f22 on 4x5" gives me equivalent depth of field to 6x7cm and enough for adequate foreground to background detail.Out of interest, what apertures do you typically use on each of these platforms?
tell me about it! I have a plan to add shift and tilt to a Mamiya 7 when I get my own workshop sometime in the future. The lenses seem sharper than most of the 35mm lenses I own..I think a complicating factor is that the Mamiya 7 lenses are spectacular and the 4x5 lenses i own, while good, are not in the same league. I should invest in new lenses if I really want to take resolution to the next level. Man, if only the 7II had shift movements!
Portra 400 does tend toward a slightly more magenta look which can be pleasing - I found it a little frustrating after a while. I would be happy if the new Portra 160 was the only colour film available, although velvia 50 and Portra 400 would be the icing on the cake.With regards to Portra 400 VS. 160, I've tried the new flavors of both and for some reason preferred the 400. Something about the way the color saturated when overexposed seemed more pleasing. Your tests might have convinced me to give the 160 another try though. It does look sharper.
Fred you are quite right! One of my reasons for getting into LF and subsequently MF Digital was exactly what you state. Interestingly (and perhaps because we have such limited choice at present, Edit: in terms of digitally optimised glass), this element of lenses are not discussed so much. Results I've seen form the Schneider POne 150/3.5 look stunning, I have the 110 LS and can assert it is truly stunning. That said, I also love my little Agfa Isolette with the 75/3.5 Solinar lens. Truly pictorial results on 6x6, plus it folds up and goes in your pocket.Putting aside the sharpness results an important thing to keep in mind is the aesthetic of smaller format lenses compared to larger format lenses...
..has that large format look and a sense of depth combined with pictorical rendering of the background....
Agreed. In the field, 4x5 is subject to vibrations by just a light breeze, and 8x10 even more so. The reality is that getting an "optimal" 4x5 or 8x10 capture *in the field* is EXTREMELY difficult. This is where digital MF sits heads and shoulders above traditional LF film capture. For me, I find I get superior net results in the field from direct MF digital -- and have been ever since single-capture MF digital hit 39MP -- than I ever did from LF and film. I am not saying I never got excellent LF captures, I did, just they were more the exception than the norm, and direct digital renders a much higher percentage of technologically superior files. I respect others opinions and experiences may vary. (Or if you only work inside a controlled studio environment, and have unlimited time to set each frame up, then I'd agree LF film has the edge.) Regardless one thing is for certain, and that is from capture to final print, the direct digital workflow is far more efficient than the traditional wet film to wet print workflow -- I don't think anybody can argue that pointIn my experience with 4x5", I find it difficult in practice to extract more detail than I would with my Mamiya 7 kit out in the field.
Jack, I'm willing to go climb mountain together, anoint stones with oil and chant this over and over to ward off the evils of Dante. :ROTFL:...I am quite satisfied with the performance of my existing back and lenses as ...