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!

Next Gen Alpha FF DSLR

fotografz

Well-known member
:shocked::shocked:

So, we're talking about an S2 competitor? If they pull that off, then it's bye-bye medium format...

... but, surely, they'll not pull that off. (if they do, monkeys will fly out my butt :D :ROTFL:)

Much of what has been floating around actually seems to possibly point to a more canikon approach. Let's hope not! Oh how I'd love 30mp and no AA filter, all in an a900 body. woohooooo....
We'll pixel count isn't everything. At 35 meg the pixel pitch will get even smaller. Unless Sony comes out with a larger than 35mm sized sensor (thus rendering everything we already own obsolete), it'll still trail any 645 MF sensor ... which is larger. ;)

-Marc
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Except that 35mm sensor technology is more advanced than that of MF due to the bigger budgets and number of units produced. So the size advantage imo is a bit attenuated.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Except that 35mm sensor technology is more advanced than that of MF due to the bigger budgets and number of units produced. So the size advantage imo is a bit attenuated.
Really? That notion is not born out even with more primitive MF backs compared to more recent 35mm DSLRs in terms of image quality, let alone recent ones like the P45+ & P65+.

My now sold 16 meg CFV-II back on a 503CW (using ancient 9 micron CCD sensor technology) still produced better over-all IQ than my 25 meg CMOS Sony A900 and Nikon D3X. The CFV's color, tonal gradation and resolution were all visibly better. The proof is in the print, not the internet.

All of the MF backs (except the original 12 bit Kodak ProBack) are true 16 bit CCDs just for starters. The only 16 bit DSLR I know of was the crop frame CCD Leica DMR ... which was partially produced by ... the MF digital back maker Imacon ... a camera still touted as producing excellent IQ despite a measly meg count and crop frame.

Sorry, I just don't buy it ... wishful thinking IMO. :rolleyes:
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hmmm, I think the gap with MF has closed. MF remains slightly superior at similar pixel counts, but I would not want a 16mp back in place of my 25mp Sony. Count for count, though, my "budget" 22mp Mamiya ZD MF camera is slightly better than the 25mp from the Sony A900, BUT that is at least in part due to the absence of any AA filter on the ZD. Sometimes the different look of MF can be mistaken for "better".

I remember just how good my now decrepit Kodak 14nx 13.5mp camera could be, which had a lot of problems with its sensor, but had the big advantage of no AA filter.

So, for the next gen Sony camera, no AA filter, or a removable AA filter, please. I think the difference would be very obvious and for the better and would close the gap with MF
 

Lars

Active member
Really? That notion is not born out even with more primitive MF backs compared to more recent 35mm DSLRs in terms of image quality, let alone recent ones like the P45+ & P65+.

My now sold 16 meg CFV-II back on a 503CW (using ancient 9 micron CCD sensor technology) still produced better over-all IQ than my 25 meg CMOS Sony A900 and Nikon D3X. The CFV's color, tonal gradation and resolution were all visibly better. The proof is in the print, not the internet.

All of the MF backs (except the original 12 bit Kodak ProBack) are true 16 bit CCDs just for starters. The only 16 bit DSLR I know of was the crop frame CCD Leica DMR ... which was partially produced by ... the MF digital back maker Imacon ... a camera still touted as producing excellent IQ despite a measly meg count and crop frame.

Sorry, I just don't buy it ... wishful thinking IMO. :rolleyes:
A possible conclusion from your experience would be we've reached the ideal resolution of FF already - factoring in all parts of the system there's little point in going beyond 25 MP unless sensor size is increased. Would you agree?
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Marc, it's always amusing how eager you always are to contradict me even at the expense of misreading my posts. I only said the advantage got attenuated a bit, comparing to the past. Never claimed 35mm is equal or not even close.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, it's always amusing how eager you always are to contradict me even at the expense of misreading my posts. I only said the advantage got attenuated a bit, comparing to the past. Never claimed 35mm is equal or not even close.
Funny, I've always taken the word "attenuated" to mean comparatively "thin or slender" in difference ... which sounds "close" to me. ;)

Compared to the "past" the difference is now even greater with the advent of 60 meg 645 sensors and very sophisticated proprietary software innovations.

So the only eagerness I detect is that of wishful thinking that the laws of physics can be suspended :ROTFL:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hmmm, I think the gap with MF has closed. MF remains slightly superior at similar pixel counts, but I would not want a 16mp back in place of my 25mp Sony. Count for count, though, my "budget" 22mp Mamiya ZD MF camera is slightly better than the 25mp from the Sony A900, BUT that is at least in part due to the absence of any AA filter on the ZD. Sometimes the different look of MF can be mistaken for "better".

I remember just how good my now decrepit Kodak 14nx 13.5mp camera could be, which had a lot of problems with its sensor, but had the big advantage of no AA filter.

So, for the next gen Sony camera, no AA filter, or a removable AA filter, please. I think the difference would be very obvious and for the better and would close the gap with MF

I'd agree that the gap between the lowest end, older MF Back and the highest end current DSLR has closed, but still isn't "equal" ... and the meaning of lower end is changing rapidly to near 645 sensors in the 33+ meg area ... which is where most MFD backs will be by the time Sony introduces a 35 meg DSLR. Kodak no longer makes a 22 meg 645 sensor, and Hasselblad no longer even offers one in their digital back line-up. The CFV Back is now 645/39 meg.

So, if by "different look" you mean better tonal gradations, more subtile color renderings and higher resolution for better prints, I'd agree with that also :)

If Sony totally removes the AA filter from a 35 meg CMOS sensor it'll be interesting to see how they control noise and moire. The 35mm format will force a smaller pixel pitch ... a really small pixel pitch.

I'm sure it's possible, but what it will bring to the party both Pro and Con is another matter.

I'd prefer they work on the Sony camera even if the sensor stays the same ... except make it 14 bit like the D3X.

Live view, faster AF with more cross type sensors, faster capture, an even tougher sealed body, and of course more lenses.

Just my 2 centavos.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Now I know its not true science, but when I visited Michael Reichmann at his studio in Toronto, I took his "guess which camera?" test, a comparison between fairly large prints from shots taken with a Canon G10 and a P45+ back. Like almost all people who took the test, my hit rate was no better than tossing a coin. Thats not to say the G10 is a MF digital back killer, but it illustrates a fundamental problem with all these comparisons, namely that dslrs (and even high end compacts) are now so good, that "better" might not be observable in daily typical use. The law of diminishing returns is kicking in. "Good enough" is now really very good indeed. So sure, a MF bck is better than a high end dslr when measured in a test in certain defined conditions - tripod mounted, etc - , but if that difference is only detectable on huge prints, then frankly who cares? A few will, but most won't.

Then there is another factor in play here. Usability. high end dslr's are very versatile, with a huge range of lenses and accesories, flash etc at relatively reasonable prices. MF cameras lag behind in terms of facilities, portability, and versatilty quite apart from the masive cost difference needed because the market is so small cost per unit has to be high. They are largely one or two trick ponies.

The concept of "better" needs to be defined, because the outcome may be very different if all these factors are taken in to account.

Quentin
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Now I know it not true science, but when I visited Michael Reichmann at his studio in Toronto, I took his "guess which camera?" test, a comparison between fairly large prints from shots taken with a Canon G10 and a P45+ back. Like almost all people who took the test, my hit rate was no better than tossing a coin. Thats not to say the G10 is a MF digital back killer, but it illustrates a fundamental problem with all these comparisons, namely that dslrs (and even high end compacts) are now so good, that "better" might not be observable in daily typical use. The law of diminishing returns is kicking in. "Good enough" is now really very good indeed. So sure, a MF bck is better than a high end dslr when measured in a test in certain defined conditions - tripod mounted, etc - , but if that difference is only detectable on huge prints, then frankly who cares? A few will, but most won't.

Then there is another factor in play here. Usability. high end dslr's are very versatile, with a huge range of lenses and accesories, flash etc at relatively reasonable prices. MF cameras lag behind in terms of facilities, portability, and versatilty quite apart from the masive cost difference needed because the market is so small cost per unit has to be high. They are largely one or two trick ponies.

The concept of "better" needs to be defined, because the outcome may be very different if all these factors are taking in to account.

Quentin
Enjoy your G10 :ROTFL:
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
The concept of "better" needs to be defined, because the outcome may be very different if all these factors are taken in to account.
Very true, the gap has closed, and a market once driven by a handful of photographers being payed outrageous sums has crumbled down to insignificance, hence the shake up, besides other factors.

I predict this shake up being far from over, pawns were slaughtered, initial strategic moves performed, the outcome, still an unwritten page....
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yeah... that's a bit rude.
Sorry, bad attempt at humor.


However, consider the implications ... basically the thought forwarded is that there's not much discernible difference between a G10 and a MFD capture ... which means there is even less difference between the G10 and the Sony A900.

Do people really buy into that premiss?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think we are talking about two completely different worlds here. One is more mass oriented in application and the other is specialized, thus smaller.

Obviously, one is where photographers apply a tool in a commercial environment ... like Guy Mancusio for example. While it is true that the commercial market has been impacted by the economy, that hasn't stopped Guy from using MFD and continuing to upgrade his MFD tools. I don't get the impression that Guy is paid outrageous sums, he is a typical working professional photographer like many I know ... who all use a MF Digital camera.

Then there are those like Jack Flesher, who has now upgraded his MFD system to the new Phase One camera and P65+ digital back ... Or those who have moved from a CFV to a CFV/39. Why?

For many commercial and advanced non-professional photographers the criteria for IQ and "versatility" may be different and best addressed with MFD solutions.

Personally, I am working with most all of these different forms of digital cameras and can see the difference when they are properly applied. IMO, the difference is not small as implied, but I concede that is strictly up to the eye of the beholder. In the case of an Art Director being the "eye", or any commercial client with very diverse needs from any given image, the IQ criteria is pretty high.

If the standard is lowered to any degree by means of "good enough for the eye of the beholder", and the market for a higher IQ but shrinking commercial market is lessened ... then what is the motivation for a company like Sony to increase it's professional level offerings rather than flooding the market with more consumer cameras ... since the premiss seems to be that is all that is needed? If the market is tiny for MFD offerings because there is little difference, why continue on?

-Marc
 

Hank Graber

New member
I don't think it's a question of how wide a gap but what is good enough when the final is going to be reproduced on a web press in CMYK. In the film days 35mm was not good enough for product, architectural and most fashion stuff. Today 35mm DSLR's are good enough and getting better. If you are talking about business, if you can make client's happy with a $10,000 system why spend $50,000 when both systems will be obsolete in 3 years time? It's not like the photo business is getting more lucrative and budgets are going up.
 

Georg Baumann

Subscriber Member
However, consider the implications ... basically the thought forwarded is that there's not much discernible difference between a G10 and a MFD capture ...
May be some clarification, what I witnessed was this:

Shots of the same subject, frosted red leaves, taken with similar settings, on a Hasseblad and a G10, both printed afterwards on Epson 3800 A3 size were close to equal in print output quality, such that you had to know exactly what to look for to tell which was Hasselblad and which was G10.

So what that means is, that it is possible for certain types of subject/light to achieve an A3 print output with a Canon G10 that equals the quality of the same output from a 30,000 dollar system (at this time).

You know, coincidently, I was in Michael Reichmann's studio when he tested that last year in October, and I would say, using both Epson 3800 and Epson 11880 I somewhat know what to look for in prints.
 

Eoin

Member
From a non professional view point, I believe with the current camera equipment I have coupled with the software and hardware I use, the output results far exceed anything I ever managed to produce in my darkroom.

I do notice the subtle differences between lenses, cameras, printers and prints along my digital journey. But the sad fact of the matter is these seem lost on people who get prints from me. To them, there is no discernible difference in the quality of an image shot with a PnS or a top class dSLR with Zeiss lenses, or if it's printed on Baryta or cheap Ilford Galarie.

From my own perspective, I've now reached a point where what I have is as good as I really need, anything more is a waste of financial resources to gain nuances. I'm reminded however it's more the power of correct framing and content that makes the image, rather than ultimate image resolution and tones. But I won't be giving up my a900 for a PnS at any stage.

I've always had a fascination with MF and it's square format, however as I never print larger than A2 it's quality and cost are beyond my needs.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
From a non professional view point, I believe with the current camera equipment I have coupled with the software and hardware I use, the output results far exceed anything I ever managed to produce in my darkroom.

I do notice the subtle differences between lenses, cameras, printers and prints along my digital journey. But the sad fact of the matter is these seem lost on people who get prints from me. To them, there is no discernible difference in the quality of an image shot with a PnS or a top class dSLR with Zeiss lenses, or if it's printed on Baryta or cheap Ilford Galarie.

From my own perspective, I've now reached a point where what I have is as good as I really need, anything more is a waste of financial resources to gain nuances. I'm reminded however it's more the power of correct framing and content that makes the image, rather than ultimate image resolution and tones. But I won't be giving up my a900 for a PnS at any stage.

I've always had a fascination with MF and it's square format, however as I never print larger than A2 it's quality and cost are beyond my needs.
You are right, if you do not print larger than A2 you will definitely be sufficiently happy with 35mm FF DSLRs, even with 4/3 or M4/3.

I am very close to buy a GF1 as complement to my H3D39 in order to have a high quality P&S which will allow me to print at least A3+ in sufficient quality.

Not sure where my A900 will go then???? Maybe no longer needed? As well as my Leica M system, as I am not so impressed with the M9 and can produce many of the images also with a GF1 - at least for my quality expectations.
 
Top