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!

Fotodiox challenges medium format resolution

Pierrard

New member
Yep - this will get rid of 'stitching errors' but still requires multiple shots to get the final image. I do this all the time (without this type of system) but the simple fact is that you still need multiple shots.

I imagine this is aimed primarily at landscape and urban photographers, where the subject is not moving, which is pretty much the only subject you can shoot in this style. Unfortunately this eliminates water (a fairly common occurrence) unless it's possible to do long exposure.

And if you want to do long exposure in general, multiple long exposures end up taking much longer than desired, and the light doesn't stay the same forever.

That's why I personally use/want high-resolution single exposures, and if I can't afford the digital, then I simply use film.
 

thrice

Active member
Stitching works well for architecture and landscape using a nodal head.
Doing this will net you no additional benefits.
My Nodal Ninja has markings for the nodal points of all my lenses, probably quicker to set up than the Vizelex.

Interesting idea none the less.
 
I think they should be turned over for misrepresenting their product. Apart from the fact that stitching is a PITA, shooting a NEX is very different to a 16 bit RAW file through the best engineered APO glass, because the hassle of this compares with a tech camera. Why didn't they stitch the P45 to the same resolution then compare? They've also chosen a subject at the correct frequency to introduce moire and then scaled it up in the P45 image.
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
MFD dead again! On the bright side, I have some excess Pentax 645 glass I haven't sold because of the low prices, this should drive the market
 

David Klepacki

New member
Yep - this will get rid of 'stitching errors' but still requires multiple shots to get the final image. I do this all the time (without this type of system) but the simple fact is that you still need multiple shots.

I imagine this is aimed primarily at landscape and urban photographers, where the subject is not moving, which is pretty much the only subject you can shoot in this style. Unfortunately this eliminates water (a fairly common occurrence) unless it's possible to do long exposure.

And if you want to do long exposure in general, multiple long exposures end up taking much longer than desired, and the light doesn't stay the same forever.

That's why I personally use/want high-resolution single exposures, and if I can't afford the digital, then I simply use film.
This Fotodiox kit will not be as useful if you need high resolution and very long exposures. But, it does provide a very inexpensive alternative for those people who do not need such long exposures.

On another note, this stitching technique is not limited to landscape and architecture. On the contrary, it has now become extremely popular in the wedding photography business, since it can produce an extremely shallow DOF effect with a wider field of view. Of course, this same technique can be done with an actual 645 camera, but the point is that it can be done as well in the smaller, cheaper, lighter format. You can see some examples from this photographer's blog: Woo-hoo! “Brenizer Method” (bokehrama, etc.) instructional video, produced by B&H! » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.

BTW, I currently use a technical camera and high end digital backs. I have also stitched images that exceed its resolution using smaller sensors and the results are as good or even better. In fact, the effective dynamic range of the Nex-7 is actually greater than the Phase One IQ180 back (you can look at one comparison here: DxOMark - Compare Camera Sensors). For harsh weather environments or for long treks when size and weight become an issue, I sometimes leave my technical camera gear behind.
 

torger

Active member
You get the whole camera body for $500, i e to the price of an adapter plate for a normal MFD system. Add a NEX and lenses. You can probably have quite fun with it. For serious work a nodal ninja head with a DSLR is better though, and a high res tech cam the best. But there's a slight difference in cost...
 

Pierrard

New member
On another note, this stitching technique is not limited to landscape and architecture. On the contrary, it has now become extremely popular in the wedding photography business, since it can produce an extremely shallow DOF effect with a wider field of view. Of course, this same technique can be done with an actual 645 camera, but the point is that it can be done as well in the smaller, cheaper, lighter format. You can see some examples from this photographer's blog: Woo-hoo! “Brenizer Method” (bokehrama, etc.) instructional video, produced by B&H! » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.
I've used this method as well, though not for weddings; I just wonder, given the time to set this up, if it would be easier just to freehand it?

Also, the aperture on the MF lens usually maxes out at f/2.8, though I know there are a few faster; if the intention is an extremely shallow DoF, wouldn't a faster lens be more useful? A friend of mine did an amazing example with 66 shots from a 135/2, and I've seen many good examples with the 85/1.2.

As an aside though, wouldn't a system like this be resolution-limiting? Whatever lens you use can resolve to a certain power, but beyond that there's nothing to gain. With a high-pixel density sensor like the 24MP APS-C NEX 7, that limit may be exceeded. This is exactly why new 'digital' lenses have been introduced for the high-resolution digital backs.

I do agree that this system can be useful in certain circumstances, but there are often much better ways to accomplish your goal.
 

jagsiva

Active member
Here we go again.....

1. for the format size they are talking about here, a FF MFDB covers it in a single shot, with AF/Tech lens etc. etc.

2. If I wanted to flat-stitch, the format size with a MFDB back and 120mm IC lens would be 3x this

3. Not sure the MF SLR lenses will be up to the task in the corners with such a small pixel pitch, and if you want to run off and buy the latest Digital tech lenses, then why not go all the way and by a MDFB, you're already in a different price point

4. If you did go with above, not sure infinity focus capability on anything semi-wide will work -- even the mirrorless bodies have the sensor inset by a large margin compared to how a close a DB sits again the rear element on a tech cam.

5. Also assumes that IQ (not just resolution) is apples to apples between something like an IQ160/180 and a Sony NEX

6. Try infinity focus with this thing, especially

7. Then again, Hassey is using the NEX sensor, so perhaps this will be new the setup when the space program resumes, I'm sure some modifications could be easily made for zero gravity and the need to do everything in compressed time :)

8. I would personally still use a GX680 and D800 for this kind of critical work:):)

9. Not sure why I am spending my time writing this, I should be busy looking for loose change in the sofas to fund my IQ260 Achro back.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I did a 3x3 stitch earlier this week.

IQ180, Max, Rodie 50HR.

On one axis, I shift-stitched. On the other, I pan-stitched (because shifting the lens wouldn't have given me the field of view I was after).

Frankly, if you were look at the resulting 280MP image, I would challenge anyone to be able to tell me which axis was shifted, and which was panned. It was an interesting test though, and one that I wanted to carry out.

In the future, if shift-stitching can only give the FoV I'm after on one axis, then I won't bother shifting at all - I'll get the VR Drive out and pan-stitch the whole thing.

It's utterly pointless to try to promote a piece of tech by saying "using stitching, we can match what another system can do with a single shot". Because of course, if you want to compare apples with apples, then you should stitch with both and compare those results.

Regards,

Gerald.
 

rawhead

New member
It's utterly pointless to try to promote a piece of tech by saying "using stitching, we can match what another system can do with a single shot". Because of course, if you want to compare apples with apples, then you should stitch with both and compare those results.
Gerald.

Unless, of course, the *whole point* of the claims of one of the systems is that it can be had for 1/20th the price of the other system.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Unless, of course, the *whole point* of the claims of one of the systems is that it can be had for 1/20th the price of the other system.
Well no, because for 1/20th of the price of the MF system, the Rhinocam cannot do what the MF system can do - which is of course to create an image on a medium format size sensor with a single exposure.

Whilst it's a fun piece of kit, I would question whether the Rhino's approach would actually provide a better result than using native glass (i.e. - that designed for the sensor size and pixel pitch of the NEX) pan-stitching, and then rendering to a planar projection.

Regards,

Gerald.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
This sure looks like the death knell for MFD.
... and the D800/E. There should be a separate thread about this, minimum 48 pages with suggestions about what Nikon, Phase One etc. will do after this revolutionary new technology has bankrupted them. Like a diamond studded Phase One Solar, based on a Nokia camera phone with Lomo technology integrated.
 

satybhat

Member
Unless, of course, the *whole point* of the claims of one of the systems is that it can be had for 1/20th the price of the other system.
well, in that case, for $20, you could make a wooden grid to tightly fit 24 lousy point and shoots each costing about $59 and simultaneously trigger them, then stitch to get whatever sized banner you wanted.

you could extend this to having a 100 point and shoots firing (maybe even at the same time)

why did they even invent the 35mm ? should just have had 1mm sensors !!

defeats the purpose.
 

torger

Active member
I guess you could do rough focusing on the ground glass, and then slide in the NEX camera at suitable position and do critical focusing using live view.
 
Top