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!
I see a back like this as a super tech/view camera solution over most other applications. Lenses available that outperform anything available to reflex users and full movements to mitigate DOF issues.as an architect photographer, i'm dreaming of this kind of large file (and can't afford it, my clients need A3 max. anyway... )... but i'm suspicious about the diffraction problem... if you need large DOF, you will face a real problem here !
Diffraction is an optical problem that occurs no matter what kind of sensor you use. The only difference is that with a higher res sensor you'll be able to resolve the diffraction pattern better and you'll notice the effect of diffraction at wider f-stops on the pixel level of the file. But when you compare different sensors of various resolution you should compare them at the same print size. Pixel peeping each at native file size won't do.as an architect photographer, i'm dreaming of this kind of large file (and can't afford it, my clients need A3 max. anyway... )... but i'm suspicious about the diffraction problem... if you need large DOF, you will face a real problem here !
doing so, "from my experience..." visually more pixel density you have, thinner is the DOF !Diffraction is an optical problem that occurs no matter what kind of sensor you use. The only difference is that with a higher res sensor you'll be able to resolve the diffraction pattern better and you'll notice the effect of diffraction at wider f-stops on the pixel level of the file. But when you compare different sensors of various resolution you should compare them at the same print size. Pixel peeping each at native file size won't do.
-Dominique
You're right. But that's just a visual impression you get when you view a high res print from a close distance. The classic concept of DOF is based on the visual impression at a distance that allows you to have the whole image within your field of view.doing so, "from my experience..." visually more pixel density you have, thinner is the DOF !
Yes, of course a lens can deliver much more resolution than 100 lp/mm. I was merely pointing out that the effective Nyquist limit of this 80MP sensor is approximately 70 lp/mm, and not 100 lp/mm.It doesn't work like that. When you talk about the resolving power of a lens there's always a threshold contrast in the MTF of the lens to consider. Even though digital sensors are more sensitive to contrast than most films you'll need more contrast from your lens if you intend to resolve detail close to the sensor's Nyquist frequency. If you test the aerial image of a modern high-end MF lens by projecting a lith lens target through that lens you could see that the actual resolving power of the lens on axis is diffraction limited between f/5.6 and f/8. At the center many 35mm and MF lenses can resolve more than 200 lp/mm. Some Zeiss glass was quoted at 400 lp/mm, diffraction limited at f/4.
The real challenge in lens design is getting enough contrast towards the edges of the image circle. But 100 lp/mm at 35mm off axis should still be possible.
And one more before I catch a few ZZZs;
Last weekend from Waterloo Bridge in London. 645DF, 80mm LS lens @ f11. These are two hand-held frames with allot of overlap just to get the South Bank on the Right into the frame. The final stitch is over 15,500 pixel wide
And some 100% crops
These buildings are nearly 7km away from where I was...(and it's a standard 80mm...)
Yair