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?

In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...? Personally I rate it no more than fifth, DR being the first, color accuracy being second, workflow and software performance, ease of use, stability and capabilities being third... there after, I don't care much... :toocool:
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Those that can see the difference.
Those who don't know when their next shot will end up being a mural.
Those that really like to do pore by pore clean invisible skin retouching that does not look plastic.
-bob
 
Those that can see the difference.
Those who don't know when their next shot will end up being a mural.
Those that really like to do pore by pore clean invisible skin retouching that does not look plastic.
-bob
What where those doing 4 years ago when P65+ didn't exist and the maximum res available was of 39mps Bob? Did they started photography with P65+? :watch:
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
If you don't need it you don't.
I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
:poke:
 
no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
If you don't need it you don't.
I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
:poke:
Sure they look worst... they look worst than a 22mp back too... I'll also agree that lots of res is a personal taste... Personally, I'm no res.freak but I do wonder what people see on ultra high res. backs different than (say), a P45+ or a CF39 or a 75S or a 75LV... other than more analysis... :angel:
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I have has the 45+. the 85+ and the IQ180. I probably could have stopped at the 65+ but the IQ line is just so much better to shoot.
So with the 180, I have a bit more crop-ability.
Anybody who asked the question "who needs more than x" clearly does not appreciate or need the difference especially when they take a position that implies that nobody does.
If you are reckless you can ask on the Leica forum "Who needs a rangefinder":ROTFL:
There is just no point explaining Michelangelo to a Duck. (present company excepted):lecture:
But I do agree, 6 was enough for some, then came 10, then 14, then 22/24, then 36/40. I remember when the question was "Who needs more than 6" and it was true that there were some who were content with that and it served their purposes.
 
I have has the 45+. the 85+ and the IQ180. I probably could have stopped at the 65+ but the IQ line is just so much better to shoot.
So with the 180, I have a bit more crop-ability.
Anybody who asked the question "who needs more than x" clearly does not appreciate or need the difference especially when they take a position that implies that nobody does.
If you are reckless you can ask on the Leica forum "Who needs a rangefinder":ROTFL:
There is just no point explaining Michelangelo to a Duck. (present company excepted):lecture:
But I do agree, 6 was enough for some, then came 10, then 14, then 22/24, then 36/40. I remember when the question was "Who needs more than 6" and it was true that there were some who were content with that and it served their purposes.
You still don't mention what you find different than your previous backs other than res. Bob... You see, I 've tried both the P45+ and P65+ extensively and I clearly didn't see any other difference with my 22mp back than res... Mind you that in all honesty if I was to keep one of them, it would be the Kodak sensor than the Dalsa... OTOH the res. difference of those backs with mine in single shot, was no where near the difference that my back exhibited against them when it was shot in 16x microstep mode... :bugeyes: But again, the difference there, is not only in resolution but is huge in everything... :lecture:
 

timparkin

Member
no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
If you don't need it you don't.
I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
:poke:
Hi Bob - don't want to take this off topic but why terrible? I only ask as I've done some 8x10 murals myself (two stitched together for an 8m by 3m print) and they looks way better than the equivalent from a digital back?

Obviously my quantification of 'better' may be bound by different criteria with different scaling factors... etc.. etc..

Tim
 

timparkin

Member
You still don't mention what you find different than your previous backs other than res. Bob... You see, I 've tried both the P45+ and P65+ extensively and I clearly didn't see any other difference with my 22mp back than res.
I've seen extensive differences in colour - so much so that the IQ180 is at one end of my favourite sensors and the P45+ is at the other end (regardless of resolution)
 
I've seen extensive differences in colour - so much so that the IQ180 is at one end of my favourite sensors and the P45+ is at the other end (regardless of resolution)
Yeah... there are color differences, out of my experience Dalsa sensors seem more natural than Kodak, (the Sinar 75 version of the 33mp in particular) ...that's why I said earlier to Bob that I would ...prefer the ...Kodak sensor!!! ;) Indeed, Dalsa may be more natural, but what about taste :rolleyes: ...or a little over saturation for that matter? :thumbs: Don't forget Tim that Dalsa is more neutral than film ...and my 528c when shot in multishot more neutral than ...everything (not only Dalsa)!!! :chug:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...?
Reasonable question if you do not expand the applications of these backs into areas you may not be familiar with ... a few touched upon by Bob.

Many folks (like myself), were introduced to MFD through 16 meg square backs like the Kodak ProBack, or 22 meg rectangular backs ... both of which featured a 9 micron pixel pitch affectionately called "Fat Pixels". These backs produced a very pleasing aesthetic that some still favor to this day.

However, certain short-comings like moiré, saw-tooth edges when enlarged for outlining, plus more and more demanding client multi-use applications called for more resolution or fidelity. For example, many print ads are often reproduced in a huge array of final trim/bleed sizes and page ratios, from digest to tabloid. So for example, a still life spread shot of food would have to have a huge amount of non-critical back-ground included ... previous to higher res backs, this was often solved through expensive retouching.

To help this, there were innovations like micro-step (Multi-Shot) 16 or 22 meg backs ... featuring 4 and 16 step shooting, (which I now see you are familiar with).

IMO, what the 33 and 39 meg backs offered was a more mobile one shot solution. The Multi-Shot versions continued being produced in these higher res backs for those needing it ... including demanding commercial, industrial, institutional and museum applications. I had a Hasselblad CF39 Multi-Shot I used to shoot GM work with, but could still shoot single shot for more normal stuff. The difference in tonal subtleties, color fidelity, and detail between the 39MS and 39 in single shot mode where dramatic when viewed at any distance ... not subtile to any eye.

When the H4D/60 was made available I asked for a test to determine if a 60 meg, slightly larger sensor was enough to do my commercial work, but avoid the tethered, "locked down tripod" discipline with only static subjects required of Multi-Shot. It was close enough in all areas ... except M/S color was still better. The bonus was that the higher res back combined with the well known Dalsa skin tone aesthetic helped take my single-shot portrait, and environmental portraiture to a new level with wonderful color separation and subtile tonal transitions.

DR is very good with most of these backs, but for many commercial shoots the dynamic range in a scene isn't left to chance ... it is all lit and balanced.

For most, MFD 33 to 40 meg is the sweet-spot for what and how they shoot. I like my S2 for most work these days because I'm backing off commercial work and all the possible demands it entails. However, I do not confuse the H4D/60 output with that of the S2.

-Marc

added after reading more responses: If I were still in the thick of it rather than backing off in semi-retirement ... I trade the H4D/60 for a H5D/200 ... giving me a 50 meg back for single shot, 4 shot for some work, and 6 shot for the most demanding work.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The fly in the ointment here is that Multi-Shot is good for some applications, the IQs or big 'Blads are good for many more applications. 16 shot is a very demanding discipline.
 

etrump

Well-known member
The resolution buys you much more than dots in terms of color transitions, clarity, extended functionality such as sensor+. In addition to the resolution there is also the expanded DR, and cleaner files and more natural colors. Having used P30, P45, P65 and IQ180 the progression in quality and clarity was part of the justification in addition to the usability features if the IQ series.

Anyone that prints larger than 36" prints will appreciate the higher resolution. With the right glass and technique the difference is huge between 22mp and 60/80mp.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Also not mentioned yet is some folks want the biggest in sensor size as well which only a few backs can do. I went for two things when moving up the chain from the ZD, p25,p30 one was I wanted the Dalsa so went to P40 than decided with DF and tech cam I wanted the IQ series and full frame so went IQ 160 even though I felt the P40 file size was sufficient for client work. I wanted to get away from the crop sensor especially. On the DF as the focusing cropped format screen was becoming a issue with fast style work. So it really was not much the amount of Mpx it just came with what I wanted. Also the IQ180 was a very good upgrade cost wise from the P65 so many jumped on the IQ series but the deal was the 180 not the 160 so most folks took the leap for very little cash. Plus the 180 does have the best DR lower ISO of 35 and smaller micron size, plus it does have a little different look as well. So it was in the end a great upgrade be it the mpx or not.

Believe it or not not many folks here that I know are really hung up on having the biggest MPX back as for many its secondary to other feature sets. Obviously those going large wanted it for sure.

Biggest issue with the older 39 and below backs was lower DR, bigger micron sensors with more moire issue and less feature sets and technology. Still very good backs and theP45 is the long exposure king but had crappy higher ISO levels compared to the newer Dalsa backs. Talking Phase here
 
Reasonable question if you do not expand the applications of these backs into areas you may not be familiar with ... a few touched upon by Bob.

Many folks (like myself), were introduced to MFD through 16 meg square backs like the Kodak ProBack, or 22 meg rectangular backs ... both of which featured a 9 micron pixel pitch affectionately called "Fat Pixels". These backs produced a very pleasing aesthetic that some still favor to this day.

However, certain short-comings like moiré, saw-tooth edges when enlarged for outlining, plus more and more demanding client multi-use applications called for more resolution or fidelity. For example, many print ads are often reproduced in a huge array of final trim/bleed sizes and page ratios, from digest to tabloid. So for example, a still life spread shot of food would have to have a huge amount of non-critical back-ground included ... previous to higher res backs, this was often solved through expensive retouching.
Yeah... moire with 9 microns is quite an issue I must admit, but for fashion for instance, there is no guaranty that it will be avoided with any camera since multishot is out of the question... It really is an issue with some materials but OTOH, when material is the subject (not modeling it) it is in most cases still photography, so there is the multishot solution around it...

To help this, there were innovations like micro-step (Multi-Shot) 16 or 22 meg backs ... featuring 4 and 16 step shooting, (which I now see you are familiar with).

IMO, what the 33 and 39 meg backs offered was a more mobile one shot solution. The Multi-Shot versions continued being produced in these higher res backs for those needing it ... including demanding commercial, industrial, institutional and museum applications. I had a Hasselblad CF39 Multi-Shot I used to shoot GM work with, but could still shoot single shot for more normal stuff. The difference in tonal subtleties, color fidelity, and detail between the 39MS and 39 in single shot mode where dramatic when viewed at any distance ... not subtile to any eye.

When the H4D/60 was made available I asked for a test to determine if a 60 meg, slightly larger sensor was enough to do my commercial work, but avoid the tethered, "locked down tripod" discipline with only static subjects required of Multi-Shot. It was close enough in all areas ... except M/S color was still better. The bonus was that the higher res back combined with the well known Dalsa skin tone aesthetic helped take my single-shot portrait, and environmental portraiture to a new level with wonderful color separation and subtile tonal transitions.

DR is very good with most of these backs, but for many commercial shoots the dynamic range in a scene isn't left to chance ... it is all lit and balanced.

For most, MFD 33 to 40 meg is the sweet-spot for what and how they shoot. I like my S2 for most work these days because I'm backing off commercial work and all the possible demands it entails. However, I do not confuse the H4D/60 output with that of the S2.

-Marc

added after reading more responses: If I were still in the thick of it rather than backing off in semi-retirement ... I trade the H4D/60 for a H5D/200 ... giving me a 50 meg back for single shot, 4 shot for some work, and 6 shot for the most demanding work.
Yeah... moire with 9 microns is quite an issue I must admit, but for fashion for instance, there is no guaranty that it will be avoided with any camera since multishot is out of the question... It really is an issue with some materials but OTOH, when material is the subject (not modeling it) it is in most cases still photography, so there is the multishot solution around it... OTOH, we must admit that with the 33/39 "full- frame" (well ...almost) backs, the moire issue is much reduced to an extend that it is no more of an issue than it would be with higher res. backs (or the D800E for that matter), but with considerably less investment...
Multishot though... and especially 16x micro step which can only be done with 3 22mpx backs (528c, 54h & 22ms)... well, this is a real experience as far as image quality is concerned and yet, stills is a most important studio application for pros... Clearly if I had to choose between a high res back and having both the 528c and the D800E (which I do), I wouldn't hesitate a moment for the first, I guess it all has to do with actual priorities and use, (I mostly do art reproduction) but such an investment allows financially to even add a P45+ or a 33mr Dalsa single shot second back for single shot use for what a P180 requires... surely the combination is much preferred and much more capable than having only one hi-res back ...no? Especially if other factors (like low light or hand held photography) come into play... not to mention ultra long exposures with the P45+... :toocool:
 
The fly in the ointment here is that Multi-Shot is good for some applications, the IQs or big 'Blads are good for many more applications. 16 shot is a very demanding discipline.
I must say, I do 16x microstep every day with my 528c (I don't do 4x multishot at all) and I have 100% success with two cameras, one being the (very quite) Contax 645, but the other being the (considered the most noisy) Fuji GX680... honest..., 100% success with cameras that bare no mirror lock and especially with the Fuji which bares a huge mirror... for me micro step is no more different than having a long exposure... I would be happy to share my experience on the subject to people that may have difficulties on doing 16x... first of which is to use a "they don't make them like that anymore" tripod... I use a 40 years old "Fatif"... :lecture:
 
Also not mentioned yet is some folks want the biggest in sensor size as well which only a few backs can do. I went for two things when moving up the chain from the ZD, p25,p30 one was I wanted the Dalsa so went to P40 than decided with DF and tech cam I wanted the IQ series and full frame so went IQ 160 even though I felt the P40 file size was sufficient for client work. I wanted to get away from the crop sensor especially. On the DF as the focusing cropped format screen was becoming a issue with fast style work. So it really was not much the amount of Mpx it just came with what I wanted. Also the IQ180 was a very good upgrade cost wise from the P65 so many jumped on the IQ series but the deal was the 180 not the 160 so most folks took the leap for very little cash. Plus the 180 does have the best DR lower ISO of 35 and smaller micron size, plus it does have a little different look as well. So it was in the end a great upgrade be it the mpx or not.

Believe it or not not many folks here that I know are really hung up on having the biggest MPX back as for many its secondary to other feature sets. Obviously those going large wanted it for sure.

Biggest issue with the older 39 and below backs was lower DR, bigger micron sensors with more moire issue and less feature sets and technology. Still very good backs and theP45 is the long exposure king but had crappy higher ISO levels compared to the newer Dalsa backs. Talking Phase here
Oh com'on Guy... don't tell me that you would prefer high Iso sooting with MF than your D800E... even if it is on the (+) mode... why would somebody consider buying an MFDB for its high Iso? OTOH, I didn't find DR extension to be more with P65+... (I haven't tried IQ180), It is "different" (I personally consider it more "digital") but the usable range is no more than older backs ...and I do find my 528c's DR (a little bit) more than my D800E... that is unless I go for an unnatural picture... which of course is a "personal taste" matter... but again I haven't seen any serious print that people work on the DR against "weight" of HLs and LLs... :talk028:
 

yaya

Active member
I must say, I do 16x microstep every day with my 528c (I don't do 4x multishot at all) and I have 100% success with two cameras, one being the (very quite) Contax 645, but the other being the (considered the most noisy) Fuji GX680... honest..., 100% success with cameras that bare no mirror lock and especially with the Fuji which bares a huge mirror... for me micro step is no more different than having a long exposure... I would be happy to share my experience on the subject to people that may have difficulties on doing 16x... first of which is to use a "they don't make them like that anymore" tripod... I use a 40 years old "Fatif"... :lecture:
How many images do you produce every day and how many shutter actuations do you use for each image? How much storage space does each image take (including any 1-shot "polaroids")?
 
Top