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!
Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?
- Thread starter Theodoros Fotometria
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Sorry but the only Kodak. Back that can do at least a good ISO 400 was the P30. The Dalsa in the P40,65and 160 I could get a clean full res. 400. I used that often when needed. Nikon Was not in my wheelhouse when I had Phase gear.
I also used sensor plus on certain jobs as well.
and particularly the P21+! What I've seen of the H4D40 (on the web... and here on the forums) also looks very good.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Thanks Thomas yes the Hassy 40 does look good also. I was in particular speaking of Phase stuff. I think I actually said that as I do not comment much on Hassy since I really don't follow them much so I leave that to the Hassy shooters. You know that old saying speak of what you know not what you can guess at. Lol
alan_w_george
New member
To each his own...
Not only do I use an 80Meg back, I stitch it 2x2
Why? Because I desire to make 4' prints that you can view at any distance with no compromises. Nothing less than 300dpi will suffice. Some people use 8x10 film, so what?
What's your point?
Can't speak for other MFD brands, but Hasselblad provides a direct side-by-side comparison to demonstrate the differences between each of the backs they offer, from 31 or 40 to 60 and 50MS or 200MS
Just click on the subject matter category of interest, and it's all interactive from there including zooming in and scrolling.
Sample File Images
I found it quite easy to detect the difference that resolution makes ... whether viewed small or zoomed to 100%.
-Marc
Just click on the subject matter category of interest, and it's all interactive from there including zooming in and scrolling.
Sample File Images
I found it quite easy to detect the difference that resolution makes ... whether viewed small or zoomed to 100%.
-Marc
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Perhaps he is asking about need vs want? The 'need' for certain resolution would be dictated by clients or job specifications I would think and should be pretty easy to specify. What one wants is of course a different kettle of fish, when it gets to personal desires the sky is of course the limit, everyone will have their own set of standards, own set of requirements and own benchmark.To each his own...
Not only do I use an 80Meg back, I stitch it 2x2
Some people use 8x10 film, so what?
What's your point?
I do. I'm not a pro at all and don't print 4 Feet images. But still feel the NEED. I only live once and I happen to find a great passion in photography (upgrading gear is definitely a huge part of that passion!) So I decided to have that as my only expensive hobby in life and get an elephant gun.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Best answer I have read on this forum ever. You can never put a limit on your fun unless it will kill ya of course. LOL
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I think that a number of us here, and the Leica forum, are totally and absolutely of this mindset. Well said!
:thumbs:
They were using 4x5...
Last edited:
Why does an airline have 3 classes of travel, doesn't economy do for everyone to get from A to B.
Why do car manufacturers have such a wide range of vehicles (even in the same 'class', say sedan). Doesn't a Toyota Corolla do the same Job of moving you from A to B at the speed limit. Who needs an Audi A6 (or R8) Or better yet, go back to riding a horse.
Who needs a motorboat/speed boat, Row boats have been around for 1000's years. Use your arms.
Etc etc
Medium format doesn't cater to Joe average. It caters for a niche market, those who want a particular extreme of either the hobby or profession called 'photography'. It is not economy class, and doesn't pretend to be. People want specific tools like medium format, high resolution for a variety of reasons, many of them nothing more than because it enriches THEIR life, in some way that matters to THEM.
Digital photography in general is now in 'economy' class. Prosumer SLR and Professional grade cameras are business class. Tools like the canon 1dx, the Nikon 800, and low rez MF backs are flying first class.
High Resolution Medium format is the Private Executive Jet.
It is not for everyone, but for those it is for, there is no desire to do anything else.
Regards
Mark
I think 50 megapixels is a quite nice balance for small aperture photography, and resolution-wise quite comparable to optimally used 4x5" film. Higher resolution is complicated to make effective use of due to depth of field issues, but there are cases when it indeed can be used, just not as often.
If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.
I do think that IQ180 is a little unfortunate development, here we got more resolution but worse performance with tech cam lenses. I'd rather stayed at the 6 um pixel size and seen further developments in color cast reduction. But tech cams is not the main driver for MFD and resolution increase is the simplest to do so it is understandable why the development is as it is.
I also think the upgrade programs are a bit unfortunate designed, as far as I know it has pushed users from P45+ to P65+ to IQ180. Had I been a P65+ user I'd rather get an IQ160 than an IQ180, but facing the upgrade costs and IQ180 discount it would be hard to resist...
If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.
I do think that IQ180 is a little unfortunate development, here we got more resolution but worse performance with tech cam lenses. I'd rather stayed at the 6 um pixel size and seen further developments in color cast reduction. But tech cams is not the main driver for MFD and resolution increase is the simplest to do so it is understandable why the development is as it is.
I also think the upgrade programs are a bit unfortunate designed, as far as I know it has pushed users from P45+ to P65+ to IQ180. Had I been a P65+ user I'd rather get an IQ160 than an IQ180, but facing the upgrade costs and IQ180 discount it would be hard to resist...
"I think 50 megapixels is a quite nice balance for small aperture photography, and resolution-wise quite comparable to optimally used 4x5" film. Higher resolution is complicated to make effective use of due to depth of field issues, but there are cases when it indeed can be used, just not as often."
Solution: when more DOF is needed with a larger sensor 60 or 80, move the camera back and crop. End result is still equal res (or greater) compared to a smaller sensor 40 or 50 meg. However, for creative use of less DOF, stay where you are.
Same applies in the rare case where Moiré shows up with a 60 or 80 meg file ... move the camera a bit.
If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.
Solution: use the maker's post program. Phocus does a great job in sharpening a 60 meg file. I'm sure C1 also does.
-Marc
Solution: when more DOF is needed with a larger sensor 60 or 80, move the camera back and crop. End result is still equal res (or greater) compared to a smaller sensor 40 or 50 meg. However, for creative use of less DOF, stay where you are.
Same applies in the rare case where Moiré shows up with a 60 or 80 meg file ... move the camera a bit.
If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.
Solution: use the maker's post program. Phocus does a great job in sharpening a 60 meg file. I'm sure C1 also does.
-Marc
Yes, I was rather addressing the general trend. 80 megapixels is not extreme, but say if the next step 120 megapixels with even more color cast issues, requiring even more complicated lens designs for our beloved tech cams, would that be a welcome development? I question if more resolution is the feature we desire the most now when we are up at this level. But maybe it is?
Personally I desire more balanced systems where lenses, sensors and shooting technique collaborate in concert. I don't like the trend that some of the simple distortion-free Schneider Digitar lenses are pushed towards becoming obsolete due to that the (current) small-pixel sensors don't manage to capture light at low angles. I also question if it is wise to design tech cam lenses that peak at f/8 or even f/5.6 rather than f/11.
Sure it is okay to have ultra-resolution alternative, but I still think there is a niche of moderate resolution and moderate cost lenses and cameras - a niche with growth potential, and I don't see that niche getting very much addressed with the latest products. There's still lower res larger sensor backs being sold but not so much of the new developments is taking place there.
What you are referring to is a split in the tech camera world - many say that the 33-40 mp backs are the sweet spot, yet most of the higher end discussion focuses on the IQ180 and 80 mp. What gives?
More resolution is certainly desirable, with greater information in the image and the ability to crop. However, there is another issue - that of system balance, as "lesser" backs are more forgiving. An upgrade in resolution to the 80 mp back has a ripple effect throughout one's system, with the new back cost, but also needing newer lenses, more processing speed, storage costs, etc. Its an intense upgrade, not quite foregiving on the gear, but one needing the best equipment.
With film, 6x6 shots on 120 roll film had inherent flexibility advantages over 4x5. While the larger film was more awkward, it gave better results, but at that time, it wasn't more costly - if anything, perhaps the MF gear was more expensive?
As the big dogs move onto bigger backs, there is plenty of room behind them. There are many very good lenses to enjoy, nicely priced as others move on. For everyone on the bleeding edge, there's room in their wake.
More resolution is certainly desirable, with greater information in the image and the ability to crop. However, there is another issue - that of system balance, as "lesser" backs are more forgiving. An upgrade in resolution to the 80 mp back has a ripple effect throughout one's system, with the new back cost, but also needing newer lenses, more processing speed, storage costs, etc. Its an intense upgrade, not quite foregiving on the gear, but one needing the best equipment.
With film, 6x6 shots on 120 roll film had inherent flexibility advantages over 4x5. While the larger film was more awkward, it gave better results, but at that time, it wasn't more costly - if anything, perhaps the MF gear was more expensive?
As the big dogs move onto bigger backs, there is plenty of room behind them. There are many very good lenses to enjoy, nicely priced as others move on. For everyone on the bleeding edge, there's room in their wake.
Last edited:
yaya
Active member
Guys I think some of us have over reacted to Theodoros's post. He has huge experience with fine art reproduction and specifically with multi-shot products and If he believes that his camera is the best then there's nothing wrong with that and it certainly works well for him and for his business
However since the Aptus-II 12 came out (followed by the IQ180 and Credo 80) we are seeing a definite transition in many of the big museums, archives, galleries and repro-houses to the simpler, quicker and more flexible and efficient workflow of the single-shot products. Capture One 7's new processing engine has taken this systems one step further as it handles fine detail such as text, paper/ canvas texture and paint better than before.
I hate the term "game changer" but for most of these applications the Aptus-II 12 was indeed one...
Yair
However since the Aptus-II 12 came out (followed by the IQ180 and Credo 80) we are seeing a definite transition in many of the big museums, archives, galleries and repro-houses to the simpler, quicker and more flexible and efficient workflow of the single-shot products. Capture One 7's new processing engine has taken this systems one step further as it handles fine detail such as text, paper/ canvas texture and paint better than before.
I hate the term "game changer" but for most of these applications the Aptus-II 12 was indeed one...
Yair
PeterA
Well-known member
Good question Geoff . here is my answer
The Elephant Gun shooters dont care about the issues that stop non elephant gun shooters buying elephant guns... and Elephant gun shooters dont want to talk about these issues because they aren't issues...
Hope this helps:thumbup:
PeterA
Well-known member
You are a good bloke Yair - but sorry mate - I feel very sorry for serious museums and galleries who get sucked into trying to replicate what a multi shot back delivers with a single shot anything...
You know very well that the multi-shot backs destroy any single shot elephant gun in that field..
If you want absolute best money can buy quality for that stuff - the choices don't include anything that Phase One or Leaf make...now do they?:toocool:
Love my Leaf back though