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!

MFD 2025 – state of the industry and outlook

cunim

Well-known member
You mean it has light leaks or no internal black paint?
No leaks. Is blackened - poorly. No answers from customer support. Not a fan.

Of course I’m biased. Just saying I don’t think that’s more than a crude rule of thumb. I think the amount of impact/value of a change in resolution is probably a lot more dependent on whether a given use case has more than enough already -
I agree, and a refreshing comment from an equipment dealer. It's all about use cases. If the purpose is to make photos that push technical limits, we are very sensitive to minor changes. Ask any audiophile about equipment cables. If, in contrast, the purpose is to make photos, we are very insensitive to gear. Musicians are rarely audiophiles.

Sadly, the things that would be game changers in MF (eg. larger sensor area, field-usable EVFs, user interface improvements for tethering) are too expensive for our present MF companies to tackle. Maybe Leica? So, these little companies rely on sensor suppliers to do the big spend in driving product evolution. The sensor suppliers do what they know - pixel miniaturisation - and are doing an impressive job of pushing the limits of what is possible. But does it matter? Seems to me we are stuck in a silly tail chase in which ever smaller pixels are stuffed into the same size sensor. Smaller pixels have both advantages (theoretical resolution) and disadvantages (many). My own opinion is the IQ4 is already at the point where the disadvantages of small pixels can outweigh the benefits of higher resolution. As much as I love the IQ4, my old IQ180 may have been a better balanced imaging tool. That said, I am a gear nut and I might buy an IQ5, just because I can, Maybe P1 are hoping that most MF users are like me, because real photographers won't benefit from an IQ5. Just my own view.
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
No leaks. Is blackened - poorly. No answers from customer support. Not a fan.


I agree, and a refreshing comment from an equipment dealer. It's all about use cases. If the purpose is to make photos that push technical limits, we are very sensitive to minor changes. Ask any audiophile about equipment cables. If, in contrast, the purpose is to make photos, we are very insensitive to gear. Musicians are rarely audiophiles.

Sadly, the things that would be game changers in MF (eg. larger sensor area, field-usable EVFs, user interface improvements for tethering) are too expensive for our present MF companies to tackle. Maybe Leica? So, these little companies rely on sensor suppliers to do the big spend in driving product evolution. The sensor suppliers do what they know - pixel miniaturisation - and are doing an impressive job of pushing the limits of what is possible. But does it matter? Seems to me we are stuck in a silly tail chase in which ever smaller pixels are stuffed into the same size sensor. Smaller pixels have both advantages (theoretical resolution) and disadvantages (many). My own opinion is the IQ4 is already at the point where the disadvantages of small pixels can outweigh the benefits of higher resolution. As much as I love the IQ4, my old IQ180 may have been a better balanced imaging tool. That said, I am a gear nut and I might buy an IQ5, just because I can, Maybe P1 are hoping that most MF users are like me, because real photographers won't benefit from an IQ5. Just my own view.
The only disadvantages of smalller pixels are:
- requires more storage and processing power
- slower readout
 

ThdeDude

Well-known member
50% focal length difference is much more at wide than at long end. Maybe one should use a factor for angle instead of focal length.
Wouldn't make a difference in the analysis since there is a direct relationship between angle of view and focal length: angle of view is inversely proportional to the focal length. Doubling the focal length halves the angle of view, and halving the focal length doubles the angle of view. (Assuming same sensor size, and that lens covers the sensor.)
 
Last edited:

MartinN

Well-known member
The only disadvantages of smalller pixels are:
- requires more storage and processing power
- slower readout
Noise,noise and more noise. For the specified generation of sensors. But I as a starting astrophotographer can already see the benefits of huge pixels. And full well capacity.
 

jduncan

Active member
So 2024 is coming to an end and we had some good releases from P1 at the beginning of the year and also the advent of the 100 megapixel Hassy back, so in a way a good year, but clearly activity stays muted with a bit of a lull on the forum here as well, at least it seems to me.

This being said, 2025 is looking to be a VERY interesting year for MFD, including also tech cams, so I think its worthwhile looking into the crystal ball to see what's next:

  1. Phase One
    1. Clearly the elephant in the room - if they release the IQ5 this could finally be the impulse needed to revive the tech cam category
      1. Mainly because it will create movement in existing IQ4s moving to new hands by people who upgrade
    2. 250 MPX IQ5 is confirmed and being worked on; 3:2
      1. Big question is if this is a product people buy given a lot of trust has been lost due to complete lack of news, the XT tilt lens debacle, etc. and given it is 3:2
    3. Open question around: ancillary improvements, ie: EVF, tiltable screen, I/O and battery life, even DR
    4. Lenses: All lenses moved to tilt variants, 70 and 90 HR and especially the new 150 and the electric back extender indicate that we're about to finally see the XT XL which is essentially a re-badged Cambo wide shift camera (ie 18mm+)
    5. XC 40 is nice, but a non-starter price-wise; the Alpa solution with the 40 HR in X shutter costs a bit more than half ..
I am surprised by the "250 MPX IQ5 is confirmed and being worked on; 3:2" affirmation. Paul is putting all his credibility on the line for a 250 IQ5 release in 2025. I don't have any reason to doubt him, but the forceful affirmation is quite something.

My main concern with that industrial sensor is that we know it has a significantly lower dynamic range. I wonder if P1 is going to implement multishot, or if they will correctly say you normally don't need high dynamic range in the studio, or if they will lie, knowing P1 buyers are going to believe them.

The idea that P1 is going to move all the lenses to tilt variants in a single year is another amazing call, let see if it happens.
Best regards.
 

ThdeDude

Well-known member
... If the purpose is to make photos that push technical limits, we are very sensitive to minor changes. Ask any audiophile about equipment cables. If, in contrast, the purpose is to make photos, we are very insensitive to gear. Musicians are rarely audiophiles.

... real photographers won't benefit from an IQ5. Just my own view.
I basically agree with what you say, although you may have overstated your argument in your last sentence. I think most P1 users are far more interested in improvements as to ease of use, more fluidity in the process, and some new features than higher resolution. The 247MP resolution surely will tax existing lenses, whether from P1 or Rodenstock, and hence, may not offer a corresponding improvements in the actual image quality.
 
Last edited:

ThdeDude

Well-known member
Last edited:

SrMphoto

Well-known member
Wouldn't make a difference in the analysis since there is a direct relationship between angle of view and focal length: angle of view is inversely proportional to the focal length. Doubling the focal length halves the angle of view, and halving the focal length doubles the angle of view. (Assuming same sensor size, and that lens covers the sensor.)
You are correct. But instead of a factor it should be an offset.
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
Noise,noise and more noise. For the specified generation of sensors. But I as a starting astrophotographer can already see the benefits of huge pixels. And full well capacity.
Sensors with larger pixels do not have less noise when comparing the output at the same size. Sensor size is the main factor that determines the noise (and in-camera processing).
 

MartinN

Well-known member
The Sony A7S is a nice camera. 8.4 micron pixels. A bit dated but with more modern pixel tech it could really beat up those minimal pixels.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
I am surprised by the "250 MPX IQ5 is confirmed and being worked on; 3:2" affirmation. Paul is putting all his credibility on the line for a 250 IQ5 release in 2025. I don't have any reason to doubt him, but the forceful affirmation is quite something.

My main concern with that industrial sensor is that we know it has a significantly lower dynamic range. I wonder if P1 is going to implement multishot, or if they will correctly say you normally don't need high dynamic range in the studio, or if they will lie, knowing P1 buyers are going to believe them.

The idea that P1 is going to move all the lenses to tilt variants in a single year is another amazing call, let see if it happens.
Best regards.
I mention such things on a so clear basis because I am basing it on a confirmed industry source basis. I have through the years built my own network and in this case I have direct confirmation from the source. I posted already a few months back when I got it confirmed. The XT XL is also a topic long time in the making, I don’t know why it hasn’t been released yet other than that it might be timed with the IQ5, but the fact we got the 90 tilt in XT is a dead giveaway and I have no clue if some manager has killed it because they think it does not make a good investment case. But the XT XL or however they will name it, has been conceptionalized since years internally. I guess the XC got precedence given the market moved to mirrorless, but I am still hopeful they go ahead with it.

I can also confirm the S4s compatibility with SL, S and M glass and Summarit 2.5 spec for the lenses. It was at one point open vs 2.0, but they settled on 2.5. So essentially like the vintage S, but smaller given the lower FFD.

I have accurately mentioned the whole P1 product line at the beginning of they year, including the new tilt variants of the 70 and 90, and re the 247 MPX sensor - yes, this is in the works.

That’s why we had a long thread about it earlier in the year. 3:2 is the problem …
 

ThdeDude

Well-known member
You are correct. But instead of a factor it should be an offset.
Not sure what you mean?

In the case of my 4x5" lens kit, the lower limit is set by the shortest focal length lens that still (barely) covers 4x5, that is Schneider 38mm ƒ/5.6 Super-Angulon XL, and the upper limit by the longest focal length lens, Nikon 720mm ƒ/16, that still works with the extension available on a stock Linhof Technikardan.
 

cunim

Well-known member
The only disadvantages of smalller pixels are:
- requires more storage and processing power
- slower readout
Most of the issues are not within the sensor and its support package, though dynamic range is problematic partly because there are optical interactions between closely spaced pixels - even when viewing projected test patterns. Sony have done a very good job of minimising such artefacts, as best I can tell. These new CMOS packages are remarkable and the IQ4 sensor is wonderful. The back as a whole, not so much wonderfulness. Lots of room for an IQ5 in improving that back.

Back to teeny pixels. Most issues result from interactions with other parts of the acquisition environment. For example, lens MTFs, mount stability, passing trucks and your studio floor, inadequate focus aids, etc. The resolution of any sensor is, of course, stated without taking these things into account. Resolution is theoretical. Realising the potential gets harder and harder - and more expensive for us what with new lenses, ultra stable mounts and so forth - as pixel size decreases. In contrast, put 250 MP into a true 6 x 9 camera format and everything gets easier for everyone. Well .... I guess carrying it would be harder.
 

SrMphoto

Well-known member
Guys, I think its gonna be a good 2025 for MFD - rates down, wars hopefully end, stock markets up, Phase comes out of the eternal sleep cycle ... and Leica releases a once in a two-decades new MF mount with killer lenses ... c'mon! That's exciting!
I suspected but now I know that you are overly optimistic 😄.
Wishing everybody a great 2025!
 

John Black

Active member
That’s why we had a long thread about it earlier in the year. 3:2 is the problem …
Assuming somebody is shooting a technical camera, stitching might become more commonplace to offset for the loss in native aspect ratio.

An EVF would be nice, but how does that work with something like the XT? Ergonomically the IQ5 would some EVF outgrowth atop the IQ5 itself. Seems rather improbable, doesn't it? A tilt screen on the IQ5 would be an improvement. It certainly wouldn't hurt when the tripod is sitting low to the ground.

While I'm mildly curious to see what Phase does, a monochrome GFX 100 II would have me grining from ear to ear. I'd get their TSE lenses and be done with Phase, done tech cams.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Assuming somebody is shooting a technical camera, stitching might become more commonplace to offset for the loss in native aspect ratio.

An EVF would be nice, but how does that work with something like the XT? Ergonomically the IQ5 would some EVF outgrowth atop the IQ5 itself. Seems rather improbable, doesn't it? A tilt screen on the IQ5 would be an improvement. It certainly wouldn't hurt when the tripod is sitting low to the ground.

While I'm mildly curious to see what Phase does, a monochrome GFX 100 II would have me grining from ear to ear. I'd get their TSE lenses and be done with Phase, done tech cams.
It could be a lightweight EVF you just power via cable or with inbuilt battery which you slot into a cold shoe. XC has a cold shoe as does the XT. You connect via WIFI or cable, power self-contained or via cable. Like the M11 EVF.

Even cheaper would be tilt screen with EVF "hood".

M11 type solution would be the best solution IMHO.

Its not pretty, but I doubt after the release of the XC that they'll develop yet another mirrorless body with an EVF bridge inside, but who knows - would burn all existing XC customers who dropped the equivalent of a car on a one-trick pony.
 

rdeloe

Well-known member
While I'm mildly curious to see what Phase does, a monochrome GFX 100 II would have me grining from ear to ear. I'd get their TSE lenses and be done with Phase, done tech cams.
A monochrome GFX 100 type camera would be quite something. It seems like the kind of move that would create a big splash and a lot of excitement in one corner of the photography world.
 
Top