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!
Erik,
You missed my main point. If your prints have important detail at or near the Nyquist frequency, you are either printing too large, or going for a deliberate distortion effect. It's something I see all the time in fine art galleries, and to be honest, I think the effect is not deliberate most of the time. Artists often print too large for their own good; they confuse the visual impact of a larger print with the visual impact of great content.
I am not sure why you are comparing a medium format lens that was designed 50 years ago, for film imaging, with a modern 35mm-format lens. This thread was originally about the Leica S system, which features modern lenses that are very bit as good as anything available for smaller formats.
Even so, your graph proves my point. At 60 lp/mm, the Sony has a contrast of 55%. At 30 lp/mm, the old Zeiss lens has a contrast of 70%. That's a significant difference in a print. Fine detail that is captured at 60 lp/mm on a smaller Sony a7 sensor would be in the 30 lp/mm range on a P45 sensor (which is twice as large).
Imagine what a modern S lens can do. The closest effective magnification to a 90mm on 35mm in the S system is the 120, and it has more than 80% contrast at 40 lp/mm in the centre at optimum aperture! Even wide open at f:2.5, it has higher contrast than the Sony 90mm lens at f:2.8.
The difference isn't even subtle at that level. The S system allows you to use better lenses, at lower magnifications, compared to top-tier 35mm systems. The result of that double advantage is more life-like frequency response throughout the tonal range of your prints.
The same can be argued of other medium format systems sold by PhaseOne, Hasselblad and Fuji. They all have an "unfair advantage" compared to 35mm. Their imaging systems are much less stressed at similar print sizes.
OMG so since we already have 101mp sensors the 2014 sensor doesn't deliver any good picture anymore?With a 2014 iq150 sensor, maybe the futur is already pasted![]()
When i said «2014 sensor, futur is already gone» this was just a joke, because i felt you were maybe too exalted about your camera ....OMG ....
the camera itself is 2017!
whaaaaaaatevaaaaaWhen i said «2014 sensor, futur is already gone» this was just a joke, because i felt you were maybe too exalted about your camera ....
But now, if you say : 2017 is the futur....then i might laugh again![]()
When i said «2014 sensor, futur is already gone» this was just a joke, because i felt you were maybe too exalted about your camera ....
But now, if you say : 2017 is the futur....then i might laugh again![]()
Erik -Hi,
My take is that a 37.5 MP pictures camera takes 37.5 weather the model has been updated to a higher resolution version or not.
It can also be said that that the difference between 37.5MP and 50 MP is not that large. It depends also on which aspect ratio a photographer prefers.
Smaller pixels have at least two advantages:
There are also a couple of downsides to smaller pixels.
- They will deliver higher fine detail contrast.
- And they will create less sampling artefacts.
- In theory, smaller pixels give a small loss of (engineering) dynamic range, but photography is often more affected by shot noise (Poisson distribution of photons sampled) than by read noise.
- Vignetting and cross talk increase with smaller pixels. But neither is a problem on a DSLR design, like the S2. Backside illumination may help a bit on both.
If we shoot stopped down beyond f/11, diffraction is the limiting factor. But even at smaller apertures, smaller pixels yield an advantage:
This has been discussed in an article at OnLandscape, they found that the Nikon D800 shot at f/16 yielded better detail than the Sony A900 at f/8. The reason was to a great part that 36MP Nikon responded better to sharpening than the 24MP Sony.
- The pixel aperture is smaller and that increases microcontrast.
- Having more megapixels is helpful in sharpening.
So, indications are that increasing resolution, within reasonable limits, is always beneficial.
In all probability, it is not more expensive to make a 100 MP sensor of say 44x33 mm size than an 50 MP sensor of the same size. The designs effort may be more expensive. Production may also be more expensive, if it needs more layers.
To me, the GFX 50 is a no brainer. It is the most affordable small medium format camera designed for the 44x33 mm sensor. That said, I am pretty sure that the 100 MP version will be a much more optimal and optically better balanced solution. So, if we are on a limited budget, it may make some sense to wait for it. But, it may be a long wait.
Weather Leica S2 or Fuji GFX is another question. I have no doubt the Leica S2 is capable of making very fine pictures. So is my Hasselblad 555/ELD and Phase One P45+ combo. My experience with the Hassy/P45+ combo is:
The last point is interesting. I guess that there may be a few aspects:
- Focusing is difficult.
- The system is a bit limited in DR.
- Aliasing is a very frequent problem and does not play well with things I shoot.
- Few Hassy pictures make it to the wall.
- To much focus on technique when shooting an image.
- The Hasselblad I use with primes, while the 24x36 systems I almost exclusively use with zooms. Zooms give me the liberty of choosing the best point of view. The primes I use with the Hassy are somewhat limiting. With the Hassy I would very often stitch.
- Stitching gives optimal results, mostly.
- But, stitching also means that I postpone a great part of the creative process until processing the images. Some spontaneity have been lost.
- Shooting MFD, I raise the ribbon.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I acknowledge that my "back-of-the-envelope" maths were off by a factor of √2 . The main points still stand.
You are using a 50-year-old medium format lens as your reference, and comparing it to modern designs. The Planar 3.5/100 was used on the Apollo Moon missions, so it was certainly a good lens at the time, but it shouldn't be your first choice today for maximum resolution or contrast. It's a very good choice for other reasons.
You are very preoccupied by response at the Nyquist frequency. I think that may be a symptom of printing too large, or looking too close (in print or on screen). There's an old English idiom: "Can't see the forest for the trees," which applies (in my opinion).
There is an artistic tradition of exploring the point at which a medium breaks down, which may be what you are doing. The movie Blow-Up comes to mind, where a greatly expanded photographic detail takes-on an aesthetic (and narrative) quality which was not evident in the original image.
It has been my experience that medium format imaging offers greater micro-contrast in finished prints, when comparing prints of similar size.
Erik -
You’ve long been unhappy with your Hassy/p45 setup, for reasons you have made clear many times. My own experiences with MFDigital gear run the other way, as it gives this user much pleasure.
I agree that focus and alignment are key. And we know older systems are often stretched to their limits. As your leading frustration is difficulty with focusing, why not try another system or setup and see how it feels? Just rent something else, give it a whirl. You might be surprised.
Geoff
There are many terrific things about the GFX. The manual focusing system using magnified live view is about the worst I have ever used. The magnified live view is very coarse and it was impossible for me to tell when I achieved ideal focus on my chose spot. Strange, because the specs of the EVF appear to be quite good. On paper, better than the X1D.Hi Geoff,
The GFX, which is discussed here, has probably the best focusing system of any camera. Yes, it has an issue with focus shift, but you can focus it stopped down with actual pixels view in the viewfinder. That is a great advantage.
Best regards
Erik
Two of my earliest captures with the Leica S(006).I believe too many charts and test shots in boring light and too few images showing the real benefits of MF. (IMO natural color, skin color, dr, smooth transition between focused plane and background, smooth tonalility specially in the midtones and highlights.
There are many terrific things about the GFX. The manual focusing system using magnified live view is about the worst I have ever used. The magnified live view is very coarse and it was impossible for me to tell when I achieved ideal focus on my chose spot. Strange, because the specs of the EVF appear to be quite good. On paper, better than the X1D.
Have you actually focused the GFX and compared it to a Sony A7RII or the X1D?
It is certainly a very key feature, and that's why I was so surprised by how poorly implemented it is in the GFX, which has an EVF that on paper is superior to the EVF in the X1D. When you look through the GFX viewfinder with magnified live view and compare it to the X1D or the Sony A7rII, the difference is not subtle. It is dramatic. I remember trying to focus the GFX and struggling to see the optimum focus point. I do recall Jim Kasson stating that he "solved" the issue with live view in the GFX by turning on peaking at the same time. I haven't tried it myself, but that strikes me as a kludge that may not work well in many situations. Personally, I would not like having peaking on all the time in my viewfinder. (I assume you can't set it up so that it only comes on when you go into magnified live view; with the X1D, if you have peaking on, it goes OFF when you go into live view.) I find it compromises my ability/enjoyment of the composition process as I look through a viewfinder. Peaking also does not seem to work well in low light or low contrast conditions, and you would probably have to adjust the sensitivity in certain situations.Hi Howard,
Personally, I feel that magnified live view is about the most important feature of any camera.
Best regards
Erik
I am torn between both-EVF and OVF.
I must say that since the SL I am not prefering one over the other in general. I can get along with both types.
I can imaginge for people putting the camera on a tripod and taking long time for an image an EVF/live view might be the better option.