The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: the end of medium format superiority?

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
And your I Q 140 still is better than the D800 trust me been there done that test. Retire tomorrow my 2 kits would be a tech cam , 4 lenses and a M9 kit with 4 lenses. To me that would be my retirement package. Not sure who the hell is giving it to me, guess I still have to work for it. Lol
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Guy,

The competition was the big Aptus or the IQ160. Now if someone wanted to make a scaled down tech camera kit based on the D800E sensor - something about 4.5" on a side. THAT would be interesting. God knows what lenses would work, although the Canon 17 TS would be a start. But I'm drifting :OT:.

--Matt

(Yes, I know - a 5DIII and a 17 TS lens would do the job. I just want to get rid of the mirror box, too.)
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
This is all correct, but through history, humans have always found ways around physical barriers if the need or greed is sufficient, hence atomic force and electron microscopes. Many of the things we take for granted, and use routinely today, didn't even exist in science fiction 50 years ago. Somehow, the fantasy of most humans seems to be inferior to what is achievable in the real world.
The problem here is that atomic force microscopes and electron microscopes do not violate known physical laws, but a recognition that light is limited as a carrier of information at small scales. What I am talking about is not simply inadequacy in relation to technology, but rather problems directly related to the physical universe. Exceeding the speed of light is simply not a problem of making engines powerful enough. If you pass light through an aperture, it will diffract. In order to record light, you must intersect it and you must intersect enough of it. These are not merely limits to the state of technology.

As far as science fiction goes, and the operative work is fiction, the secret to that is it is not a predictor of the future, but an extrapolation of known technology of the day. The warp drive was a device to make a TV show interesting because travel at light speed would have made the show longer than most people would want to watch, but the limits to the speed of light were known. All the technological advancements made in imaging has not changed the fundamental behavior of light. Thinking light will suddenly change its behavior in a macro world because we want it to is kind of like commanding the tide not to come in.

As far as the limits to human imagination, all of the technological developments you enjoy are the product of that imagination. I work with scientists who are doing things like imaging the change in states of atomic particles in diamonds. And doing this with light. It is funny that I work at the thresholds of what light can achieve and and see problems with your optimism with your extrapolation of photographic technology, but folks that don't even work with this stuff think that it is simply a problem of a lack of imagination. I know a lot of people who would be interested if you actually have a solution to some of these problems, even the presumably simple one of diffraction. If you just you could just solve that, the world would be an entirely different place.
 
Last edited:

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
The biggest problem is not the camera and sensor or the photographer, the limitation is the entire printing industries can't deliver all the pixels we produce or the resolution of screen (...)

+ 1

The presentation technology is far behind the capture technology.

What I desperately need is not more capture resolution but more presentation resolution:

- either a new and more affordable printing technology for printing big
- or an ultra high resolution wall screen technology for presenting still photos with the captured details

Printing all my keepers big gets too expensive as it is now.

Yeah, I know I have said this before, but it cannot be said too often, can it :rolleyes:
Maybe the industry will at some point wake up and smell some new business potentials.
 

Pingang

New member
Unfortunately a lot of business was run by people who thought they know everything and always right that often turn out untrue.

BR,
Pingang

+ 1

The presentation technology is far behind the capture technology.

What I desperately need is not more capture resolution but more presentation resolution:

- either a new and more affordable printing technology for printing big
- or an ultra high resolution wall screen technology for presenting still photos with the captured details

Printing all my keepers big gets too expensive as it is now.

Yeah, I know I have said this before, but it cannot be said too often, can it :rolleyes:
Maybe the industry will at some point wake up and smell some new business potentials.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The pixel race is becoming pointless--no pun intended.
I don't need any more pixels at the moment. What I wouldn't mind is another few stops of real usable DR with what we have today. I can slice and dice an IQ160 or D800 file pretty drastically and still have a very usable file with enough resolution for most any print size. However, blending for extreme exposures gets old after a while.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
The pixel race is becoming pointless--no pun intended.
sort of ... however, a massive increase in pixels designed strictly to be used with binning seems plausible. Say a 200 mp camera with a sensor designed to use 4 sensels per output pixel (all handled at the chip level) , RGB and density instead of current RGGB - resolution wise it's a 50mp camera but with less noise better dynamic range no aliasing/moire from demosaicing ...
 

Anders_HK

Member
To follow this theory and to put things into perspective....in the same 10 years we went from tethered-only (no LCD) 11MP to fully portable 80MP which is also more than twice the physical size so if we stick to your prediction in 10 years we'll have 560MP which probably won't be more expensive than the current 80MP and will have features that even we cannot dream about today...

Just sayin'...:poke:
Yair,

I am imressed you are leaking the news of the 560MP so early. Will that one come with the sensor stabilization to ensure of perfect solid stability of the pixels also on a steady tripod? Likewise will have to assume it is the new rumored plasma back that auto adjusts the physical size/dimension of the back and sensor itself from sensor size 645 to 4x5 pending on camera that it is mounted on, and with back being only 5.8mm thick and less than 150g, including satelite transfer of files direct to home computer no matter where it is worldwidde! I love Leaf for innovation and also saving weight on my Hy6 system with it!! :ROTFL: Rotating sensor and full sized tilting plasma display to physically adjust to camera mounted on, and of course also for the new made in Germany Hy6 ten year anniversary model... :thumbs:

Just imagine the files with the future 4x5 image circle Digitar XXL lenses with the 560MP! WOW! :chug: Pixel binning of 18x18 pixel grids I assume for hand held shots to be steady, plus of course the sensor pixels layared same as ehh... Film??... :thumbs:

With above, what is need for DSLR??

Much thanks Leaf.........., bet you will offer an attractove upgrade from my 80MP back too, lovely! Please put me down for a serious preorder and have Gavin give me a call in ten years time :)! :chug:

Best regards,
Anders
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
+ 1

The presentation technology is far behind the capture technology.

What I desperately need is not more capture resolution but more presentation resolution:

- either a new and more affordable printing technology for printing big
- or an ultra high resolution wall screen technology for presenting still photos with the captured details

Printing all my keepers big gets too expensive as it is now.

Yeah, I know I have said this before, but it cannot be said too often, can it :rolleyes:
Maybe the industry will at some point wake up and smell some new business potentials.
I'm all for the picture wall. Make that 4. Who needs Windows anyway?

O Apple, Apple, wherefore art thou Apple
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Wayne - that's so ironic. I actually bought a Fuji G617 yesterday myself!
sweet! That's the one with the fixed 105? I"m hoping to get the GX with a couple of other lenses ... saw a setup on ebay for about 12k with 3 lenses, prob a little more than I want to pay right now
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
sweet! That's the one with the fixed 105? I"m hoping to get the GX with a couple of other lenses ... saw a setup on ebay for about 12k with 3 lenses, prob a little more than I want to pay right now
I snagged a low mileage example for $1600 from ebay which wasn't too outrageous and from a known seller here in Portland. Only fixed 105 as you say but for what I want it'll do and if I decide to get more serious then there's always the GX or mighty Linhof's to consider.

Should be here Thursday so I'm looking forward to some film fun at the weekend!
 
Last edited:

bab

Active member
Just read the entire post...interestingly when I got past the part of certain people getting beaten with sticks I started to think how the conversation could be graphed! It starts with the obvious mines better than yours and winds up with scientific dreams. I personally get the most out of the posts that describe how it feels and what limitations there are to capturing images with this camera/ lens for a certain project because of how a camera or lens works.

Like the AF hunts and kills me when I'm shooting blabla...this and other limitations are much more important to me than the image. I want to here about how the equipment preformed as a tool and to what limits.

So in the past several pages I only read about the ease of the sy6 and the 800e with a lot of buttons. I guess I'm trying to say if the OP would have said my Sy6 is the best for being out at dawn shooting....because or it's the worst for shooting indoors because every time you have to...then we I could learn what camera really does what in certain situations and know from experience shooters what does or doesn't work for me and why.

Sorry not to offend anyone but I'm more into the tools for the right job at this point because the images are pretty close in print in a magazine these days.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
There is a difference between a sharp cut and a skilled cut. I find it interesting how long larger formats were used by professional and advanced amateurs without the technology put into the small formats. Do we rely on the technology or our skills to make images? Personally, the photographers that inspired me were able to use very unsophisticated cameras to get amazing results. I learnt the reason I was or was not successful was not because of the tool.
 
sort of ... however, a massive increase in pixels designed strictly to be used with binning seems plausible. Say a 200 mp camera with a sensor designed to use 4 sensels per output pixel (all handled at the chip level) , RGB and density instead of current RGGB - resolution wise it's a 50mp camera but with less noise better dynamic range no aliasing/moire from demosaicing ...
I've been having the exact same thought. Any word of manufacturers trying this approach? If you look at the pixel sizes of a lot of compact cameras, this is practically how they're working already (although no binning goes on ... you end up with a surplus of soft, fairly noisy pixels... up to the photographer to downres to a nice quality 4mp or so file).

This same size pixel on a larger sensor could be used just like you say. The only stretch might be processing resources.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I've been having the exact same thought. Any word of manufacturers trying this approach? If you look at the pixel sizes of a lot of compact cameras, this is practically how they're working already (although no binning goes on ... you end up with a surplus of soft, fairly noisy pixels... up to the photographer to downres to a nice quality 4mp or so file).

This same size pixel on a larger sensor could be used just like you say. The only stretch might be processing resources.
See also Phase One IQ and P+ Sensor+ technology.
 
See also Phase One IQ and P+ Sensor+ technology.
Sure, but this is a somewhat different implementation of the same idea. We're talking about a sensor whose base mode of operation is to have photosites that are smaller than effective resolution of the lens, and on camera processing that bins a sqare of four bayer sites to create a single rgb pixel, probably at a very high bit depth.

The result could be something like a 56 megapixel full frame camera that has 224 2-micron photosites, or the equivalent in a larger format.

Here's a chart illustrating snr benefits of binning in microscopy. I don't know how to do the math needed to estimate the dynamic range improvements, but they should be substantial.

 

PeterA

Well-known member
And your I Q 140 still is better than the D800 trust me been there done that test. Retire tomorrow my 2 kits would be a tech cam , 4 lenses and a M9 kit with 4 lenses. To me that would be my retirement package. Not sure who the hell is giving it to me, guess I still have to work for it. Lol
I think your two kit idea is spot on - but I would probably go for a 60 megapixel back...can't make up my mind which 60 though..
 
Top