Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 58

Thread: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

  1. #1
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...? Personally I rate it no more than fifth, DR being the first, color accuracy being second, workflow and software performance, ease of use, stability and capabilities being third... there after, I don't care much...

  2. #2
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Those that can see the difference.
    Those who don't know when their next shot will end up being a mural.
    Those that really like to do pore by pore clean invisible skin retouching that does not look plastic.
    -bob
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Those that can see the difference.
    Those who don't know when their next shot will end up being a mural.
    Those that really like to do pore by pore clean invisible skin retouching that does not look plastic.
    -bob
    What where those doing 4 years ago when P65+ didn't exist and the maximum res available was of 39mps Bob? Did they started photography with P65+?

  4. #4
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
    If you don't need it you don't.
    I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
    If you don't need it you don't.
    I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
    Sure they look worst... they look worst than a 22mp back too... I'll also agree that lots of res is a personal taste... Personally, I'm no res.freak but I do wonder what people see on ultra high res. backs different than (say), a P45+ or a CF39 or a 75S or a 75LV... other than more analysis...

  6. #6
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    I have has the 45+. the 85+ and the IQ180. I probably could have stopped at the 65+ but the IQ line is just so much better to shoot.
    So with the 180, I have a bit more crop-ability.
    Anybody who asked the question "who needs more than x" clearly does not appreciate or need the difference especially when they take a position that implies that nobody does.
    If you are reckless you can ask on the Leica forum "Who needs a rangefinder"
    There is just no point explaining Michelangelo to a Duck. (present company excepted)
    But I do agree, 6 was enough for some, then came 10, then 14, then 22/24, then 36/40. I remember when the question was "Who needs more than 6" and it was true that there were some who were content with that and it served their purposes.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    If you photograph people 40MP is the sweet spot for an MF camera, 20MP for 35mm FF.

  8. #8
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    I have has the 45+. the 85+ and the IQ180. I probably could have stopped at the 65+ but the IQ line is just so much better to shoot.
    So with the 180, I have a bit more crop-ability.
    Anybody who asked the question "who needs more than x" clearly does not appreciate or need the difference especially when they take a position that implies that nobody does.
    If you are reckless you can ask on the Leica forum "Who needs a rangefinder"
    There is just no point explaining Michelangelo to a Duck. (present company excepted)
    But I do agree, 6 was enough for some, then came 10, then 14, then 22/24, then 36/40. I remember when the question was "Who needs more than 6" and it was true that there were some who were content with that and it served their purposes.
    You still don't mention what you find different than your previous backs other than res. Bob... You see, I 've tried both the P45+ and P65+ extensively and I clearly didn't see any other difference with my 22mp back than res... Mind you that in all honesty if I was to keep one of them, it would be the Kodak sensor than the Dalsa... OTOH the res. difference of those backs with mine in single shot, was no where near the difference that my back exhibited against them when it was shot in 16x microstep mode... But again, the difference there, is not only in resolution but is huge in everything...

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    no, but I can do a better job now with 80 and it shows.
    If you don't need it you don't.
    I used to do murals with large format film long ago. They look TERRIBLY compared to what can now be done.
    Hi Bob - don't want to take this off topic but why terrible? I only ask as I've done some 8x10 murals myself (two stitched together for an 8m by 3m print) and they looks way better than the equivalent from a digital back?

    Obviously my quantification of 'better' may be bound by different criteria with different scaling factors... etc.. etc..

    Tim

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    You still don't mention what you find different than your previous backs other than res. Bob... You see, I 've tried both the P45+ and P65+ extensively and I clearly didn't see any other difference with my 22mp back than res.
    I've seen extensive differences in colour - so much so that the IQ180 is at one end of my favourite sensors and the P45+ is at the other end (regardless of resolution)

  11. #11
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Wink Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    I've seen extensive differences in colour - so much so that the IQ180 is at one end of my favourite sensors and the P45+ is at the other end (regardless of resolution)
    Yeah... there are color differences, out of my experience Dalsa sensors seem more natural than Kodak, (the Sinar 75 version of the 33mp in particular) ...that's why I said earlier to Bob that I would ...prefer the ...Kodak sensor!!! Indeed, Dalsa may be more natural, but what about taste ...or a little over saturation for that matter? Don't forget Tim that Dalsa is more neutral than film ...and my 528c when shot in multishot more neutral than ...everything (not only Dalsa)!!!

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...?
    Reasonable question if you do not expand the applications of these backs into areas you may not be familiar with ... a few touched upon by Bob.

    Many folks (like myself), were introduced to MFD through 16 meg square backs like the Kodak ProBack, or 22 meg rectangular backs ... both of which featured a 9 micron pixel pitch affectionately called "Fat Pixels". These backs produced a very pleasing aesthetic that some still favor to this day.

    However, certain short-comings like moiré, saw-tooth edges when enlarged for outlining, plus more and more demanding client multi-use applications called for more resolution or fidelity. For example, many print ads are often reproduced in a huge array of final trim/bleed sizes and page ratios, from digest to tabloid. So for example, a still life spread shot of food would have to have a huge amount of non-critical back-ground included ... previous to higher res backs, this was often solved through expensive retouching.

    To help this, there were innovations like micro-step (Multi-Shot) 16 or 22 meg backs ... featuring 4 and 16 step shooting, (which I now see you are familiar with).

    IMO, what the 33 and 39 meg backs offered was a more mobile one shot solution. The Multi-Shot versions continued being produced in these higher res backs for those needing it ... including demanding commercial, industrial, institutional and museum applications. I had a Hasselblad CF39 Multi-Shot I used to shoot GM work with, but could still shoot single shot for more normal stuff. The difference in tonal subtleties, color fidelity, and detail between the 39MS and 39 in single shot mode where dramatic when viewed at any distance ... not subtile to any eye.

    When the H4D/60 was made available I asked for a test to determine if a 60 meg, slightly larger sensor was enough to do my commercial work, but avoid the tethered, "locked down tripod" discipline with only static subjects required of Multi-Shot. It was close enough in all areas ... except M/S color was still better. The bonus was that the higher res back combined with the well known Dalsa skin tone aesthetic helped take my single-shot portrait, and environmental portraiture to a new level with wonderful color separation and subtile tonal transitions.

    DR is very good with most of these backs, but for many commercial shoots the dynamic range in a scene isn't left to chance ... it is all lit and balanced.

    For most, MFD 33 to 40 meg is the sweet-spot for what and how they shoot. I like my S2 for most work these days because I'm backing off commercial work and all the possible demands it entails. However, I do not confuse the H4D/60 output with that of the S2.

    -Marc

    added after reading more responses: If I were still in the thick of it rather than backing off in semi-retirement ... I trade the H4D/60 for a H5D/200 ... giving me a 50 meg back for single shot, 4 shot for some work, and 6 shot for the most demanding work.

  13. #13
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,272
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Who needs DSL? Dial up works.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    The fly in the ointment here is that Multi-Shot is good for some applications, the IQs or big 'Blads are good for many more applications. 16 shot is a very demanding discipline.

  15. #15
    Senior Member etrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    The resolution buys you much more than dots in terms of color transitions, clarity, extended functionality such as sensor+. In addition to the resolution there is also the expanded DR, and cleaner files and more natural colors. Having used P30, P45, P65 and IQ180 the progression in quality and clarity was part of the justification in addition to the usability features if the IQ series.

    Anyone that prints larger than 36" prints will appreciate the higher resolution. With the right glass and technique the difference is huge between 22mp and 60/80mp.
    Ed Cooley Fine Art Photography
     
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Also not mentioned yet is some folks want the biggest in sensor size as well which only a few backs can do. I went for two things when moving up the chain from the ZD, p25,p30 one was I wanted the Dalsa so went to P40 than decided with DF and tech cam I wanted the IQ series and full frame so went IQ 160 even though I felt the P40 file size was sufficient for client work. I wanted to get away from the crop sensor especially. On the DF as the focusing cropped format screen was becoming a issue with fast style work. So it really was not much the amount of Mpx it just came with what I wanted. Also the IQ180 was a very good upgrade cost wise from the P65 so many jumped on the IQ series but the deal was the 180 not the 160 so most folks took the leap for very little cash. Plus the 180 does have the best DR lower ISO of 35 and smaller micron size, plus it does have a little different look as well. So it was in the end a great upgrade be it the mpx or not.

    Believe it or not not many folks here that I know are really hung up on having the biggest MPX back as for many its secondary to other feature sets. Obviously those going large wanted it for sure.

    Biggest issue with the older 39 and below backs was lower DR, bigger micron sensors with more moire issue and less feature sets and technology. Still very good backs and theP45 is the long exposure king but had crappy higher ISO levels compared to the newer Dalsa backs. Talking Phase here
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Reasonable question if you do not expand the applications of these backs into areas you may not be familiar with ... a few touched upon by Bob.

    Many folks (like myself), were introduced to MFD through 16 meg square backs like the Kodak ProBack, or 22 meg rectangular backs ... both of which featured a 9 micron pixel pitch affectionately called "Fat Pixels". These backs produced a very pleasing aesthetic that some still favor to this day.

    However, certain short-comings like moiré, saw-tooth edges when enlarged for outlining, plus more and more demanding client multi-use applications called for more resolution or fidelity. For example, many print ads are often reproduced in a huge array of final trim/bleed sizes and page ratios, from digest to tabloid. So for example, a still life spread shot of food would have to have a huge amount of non-critical back-ground included ... previous to higher res backs, this was often solved through expensive retouching.
    Yeah... moire with 9 microns is quite an issue I must admit, but for fashion for instance, there is no guaranty that it will be avoided with any camera since multishot is out of the question... It really is an issue with some materials but OTOH, when material is the subject (not modeling it) it is in most cases still photography, so there is the multishot solution around it...

    To help this, there were innovations like micro-step (Multi-Shot) 16 or 22 meg backs ... featuring 4 and 16 step shooting, (which I now see you are familiar with).

    IMO, what the 33 and 39 meg backs offered was a more mobile one shot solution. The Multi-Shot versions continued being produced in these higher res backs for those needing it ... including demanding commercial, industrial, institutional and museum applications. I had a Hasselblad CF39 Multi-Shot I used to shoot GM work with, but could still shoot single shot for more normal stuff. The difference in tonal subtleties, color fidelity, and detail between the 39MS and 39 in single shot mode where dramatic when viewed at any distance ... not subtile to any eye.

    When the H4D/60 was made available I asked for a test to determine if a 60 meg, slightly larger sensor was enough to do my commercial work, but avoid the tethered, "locked down tripod" discipline with only static subjects required of Multi-Shot. It was close enough in all areas ... except M/S color was still better. The bonus was that the higher res back combined with the well known Dalsa skin tone aesthetic helped take my single-shot portrait, and environmental portraiture to a new level with wonderful color separation and subtile tonal transitions.

    DR is very good with most of these backs, but for many commercial shoots the dynamic range in a scene isn't left to chance ... it is all lit and balanced.

    For most, MFD 33 to 40 meg is the sweet-spot for what and how they shoot. I like my S2 for most work these days because I'm backing off commercial work and all the possible demands it entails. However, I do not confuse the H4D/60 output with that of the S2.

    -Marc

    added after reading more responses: If I were still in the thick of it rather than backing off in semi-retirement ... I trade the H4D/60 for a H5D/200 ... giving me a 50 meg back for single shot, 4 shot for some work, and 6 shot for the most demanding work.
    Yeah... moire with 9 microns is quite an issue I must admit, but for fashion for instance, there is no guaranty that it will be avoided with any camera since multishot is out of the question... It really is an issue with some materials but OTOH, when material is the subject (not modeling it) it is in most cases still photography, so there is the multishot solution around it... OTOH, we must admit that with the 33/39 "full- frame" (well ...almost) backs, the moire issue is much reduced to an extend that it is no more of an issue than it would be with higher res. backs (or the D800E for that matter), but with considerably less investment...
    Multishot though... and especially 16x micro step which can only be done with 3 22mpx backs (528c, 54h & 22ms)... well, this is a real experience as far as image quality is concerned and yet, stills is a most important studio application for pros... Clearly if I had to choose between a high res back and having both the 528c and the D800E (which I do), I wouldn't hesitate a moment for the first, I guess it all has to do with actual priorities and use, (I mostly do art reproduction) but such an investment allows financially to even add a P45+ or a 33mr Dalsa single shot second back for single shot use for what a P180 requires... surely the combination is much preferred and much more capable than having only one hi-res back ...no? Especially if other factors (like low light or hand held photography) come into play... not to mention ultra long exposures with the P45+...

  18. #18
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    The fly in the ointment here is that Multi-Shot is good for some applications, the IQs or big 'Blads are good for many more applications. 16 shot is a very demanding discipline.
    I must say, I do 16x microstep every day with my 528c (I don't do 4x multishot at all) and I have 100% success with two cameras, one being the (very quite) Contax 645, but the other being the (considered the most noisy) Fuji GX680... honest..., 100% success with cameras that bare no mirror lock and especially with the Fuji which bares a huge mirror... for me micro step is no more different than having a long exposure... I would be happy to share my experience on the subject to people that may have difficulties on doing 16x... first of which is to use a "they don't make them like that anymore" tripod... I use a 40 years old "Fatif"...

  19. #19
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    89
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Also not mentioned yet is some folks want the biggest in sensor size as well which only a few backs can do. I went for two things when moving up the chain from the ZD, p25,p30 one was I wanted the Dalsa so went to P40 than decided with DF and tech cam I wanted the IQ series and full frame so went IQ 160 even though I felt the P40 file size was sufficient for client work. I wanted to get away from the crop sensor especially. On the DF as the focusing cropped format screen was becoming a issue with fast style work. So it really was not much the amount of Mpx it just came with what I wanted. Also the IQ180 was a very good upgrade cost wise from the P65 so many jumped on the IQ series but the deal was the 180 not the 160 so most folks took the leap for very little cash. Plus the 180 does have the best DR lower ISO of 35 and smaller micron size, plus it does have a little different look as well. So it was in the end a great upgrade be it the mpx or not.

    Believe it or not not many folks here that I know are really hung up on having the biggest MPX back as for many its secondary to other feature sets. Obviously those going large wanted it for sure.

    Biggest issue with the older 39 and below backs was lower DR, bigger micron sensors with more moire issue and less feature sets and technology. Still very good backs and theP45 is the long exposure king but had crappy higher ISO levels compared to the newer Dalsa backs. Talking Phase here
    Oh com'on Guy... don't tell me that you would prefer high Iso sooting with MF than your D800E... even if it is on the (+) mode... why would somebody consider buying an MFDB for its high Iso? OTOH, I didn't find DR extension to be more with P65+... (I haven't tried IQ180), It is "different" (I personally consider it more "digital") but the usable range is no more than older backs ...and I do find my 528c's DR (a little bit) more than my D800E... that is unless I go for an unnatural picture... which of course is a "personal taste" matter... but again I haven't seen any serious print that people work on the DR against "weight" of HLs and LLs...

  20. #20
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    I must say, I do 16x microstep every day with my 528c (I don't do 4x multishot at all) and I have 100% success with two cameras, one being the (very quite) Contax 645, but the other being the (considered the most noisy) Fuji GX680... honest..., 100% success with cameras that bare no mirror lock and especially with the Fuji which bares a huge mirror... for me micro step is no more different than having a long exposure... I would be happy to share my experience on the subject to people that may have difficulties on doing 16x... first of which is to use a "they don't make them like that anymore" tripod... I use a 40 years old "Fatif"...
    How many images do you produce every day and how many shutter actuations do you use for each image? How much storage space does each image take (including any 1-shot "polaroids")?
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    In fact who needs more than 22?
    I do.

    Close the thread, because the question has been answered.

  22. #22
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    Oh com'on Guy... don't tell me that you would prefer high Iso sooting with MF than your D800E... even if it is on the (+) mode... why would somebody consider buying an MFDB for its high Iso? OTOH, I didn't find DR extension to be more with P65+... (I haven't tried IQ180), It is "different" (I personally consider it more "digital") but the usable range is no more than older backs ...and I do find my 528c's DR (a little bit) more than my D800E... that is unless I go for an unnatural picture... which of course is a "personal taste" matter... but again I haven't seen any serious print that people work on the DR against "weight" of HLs and LLs...
    Sorry but the only Kodak. Back that can do at least a good ISO 400 was the P30. The Dalsa in the P40,65and 160 I could get a clean full res. 400. I used that often when needed. Nikon Was not in my wheelhouse when I had Phase gear.

    I also used sensor plus on certain jobs as well.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Sorry but the only Kodak. Back that can do at least a good ISO 400 was the P30
    and particularly the P21+! What I've seen of the H4D40 (on the web... and here on the forums) also looks very good.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #24
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Thanks Thomas yes the Hassy 40 does look good also. I was in particular speaking of Phase stuff. I think I actually said that as I do not comment much on Hassy since I really don't follow them much so I leave that to the Hassy shooters. You know that old saying speak of what you know not what you can guess at. Lol
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...? Personally I rate it no more than fifth, DR being the first, color accuracy being second, workflow and software performance, ease of use, stability and capabilities being third... there after, I don't care much...
    To each his own...

    Not only do I use an 80Meg back, I stitch it 2x2 Why? Because I desire to make 4' prints that you can view at any distance with no compromises. Nothing less than 300dpi will suffice.

    Some people use 8x10 film, so what?

    What's your point?

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Can't speak for other MFD brands, but Hasselblad provides a direct side-by-side comparison to demonstrate the differences between each of the backs they offer, from 31 or 40 to 60 and 50MS or 200MS

    Just click on the subject matter category of interest, and it's all interactive from there including zooming in and scrolling.

    Sample File Images

    I found it quite easy to detect the difference that resolution makes ... whether viewed small or zoomed to 100%.

    -Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by alan_w_george View Post
    To each his own...

    Not only do I use an 80Meg back, I stitch it 2x2 Why? Because I desire to make 4' prints that you can view at any distance with no compromises. Nothing less than 300dpi will suffice.

    Some people use 8x10 film, so what?

    What's your point?
    Perhaps he is asking about need vs want? The 'need' for certain resolution would be dictated by clients or job specifications I would think and should be pretty easy to specify. What one wants is of course a different kettle of fish, when it gets to personal desires the sky is of course the limit, everyone will have their own set of standards, own set of requirements and own benchmark.
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    I do. I'm not a pro at all and don't print 4 Feet images. But still feel the NEED. I only live once and I happen to find a great passion in photography (upgrading gear is definitely a huge part of that passion!) So I decided to have that as my only expensive hobby in life and get an elephant gun.
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    I do. I'm not a pro at all and don't print 4 Feet images. But still feel the NEED. I only live once and I happen to find a great passion in photography (upgrading gear is definitely a huge part of that passion!) So I decided to have that as my only expensive hobby in life and get an elephant gun.

    Best answer I have read on this forum ever. You can never put a limit on your fun unless it will kill ya of course. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    having said that I still kick myself for my inability to control GAS

  31. #31
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmbma View Post
    I do. I'm not a pro at all and don't print 4 Feet images. But still feel the NEED. I only live once and I happen to find a great passion in photography (upgrading gear is definitely a huge part of that passion!) So I decided to have that as my only expensive hobby in life and get an elephant gun.
    I think that a number of us here, and the Leica forum, are totally and absolutely of this mindset. Well said!

    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    What where those doing 4 years ago when P65+ didn't exist and the maximum res available was of 39mps Bob? Did they started photography with P65+?
    They were using 4x5...
    Last edited by Marlyn; 26th February 2013 at 13:54.

  33. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    55
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    In fact who needs more than 22? ...What do people see different on ultra high resolution backs other than resolution? How high a factor do you rate analysis for the quality of your photography...? Personally I rate it no more than fifth, DR being the first, color accuracy being second, workflow and software performance, ease of use, stability and capabilities being third... there after, I don't care much...
    Why does an airline have 3 classes of travel, doesn't economy do for everyone to get from A to B.

    Why do car manufacturers have such a wide range of vehicles (even in the same 'class', say sedan). Doesn't a Toyota Corolla do the same Job of moving you from A to B at the speed limit. Who needs an Audi A6 (or R8) Or better yet, go back to riding a horse.

    Who needs a motorboat/speed boat, Row boats have been around for 1000's years. Use your arms.

    Etc etc

    Medium format doesn't cater to Joe average. It caters for a niche market, those who want a particular extreme of either the hobby or profession called 'photography'. It is not economy class, and doesn't pretend to be. People want specific tools like medium format, high resolution for a variety of reasons, many of them nothing more than because it enriches THEIR life, in some way that matters to THEM.

    Digital photography in general is now in 'economy' class. Prosumer SLR and Professional grade cameras are business class. Tools like the canon 1dx, the Nikon 800, and low rez MF backs are flying first class.

    High Resolution Medium format is the Private Executive Jet.

    It is not for everyone, but for those it is for, there is no desire to do anything else.

    Regards

    Mark
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    I think 50 megapixels is a quite nice balance for small aperture photography, and resolution-wise quite comparable to optimally used 4x5" film. Higher resolution is complicated to make effective use of due to depth of field issues, but there are cases when it indeed can be used, just not as often.

    If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.

    I do think that IQ180 is a little unfortunate development, here we got more resolution but worse performance with tech cam lenses. I'd rather stayed at the 6 um pixel size and seen further developments in color cast reduction. But tech cams is not the main driver for MFD and resolution increase is the simplest to do so it is understandable why the development is as it is.

    I also think the upgrade programs are a bit unfortunate designed, as far as I know it has pushed users from P45+ to P65+ to IQ180. Had I been a P65+ user I'd rather get an IQ160 than an IQ180, but facing the upgrade costs and IQ180 discount it would be hard to resist...

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    "I think 50 megapixels is a quite nice balance for small aperture photography, and resolution-wise quite comparable to optimally used 4x5" film. Higher resolution is complicated to make effective use of due to depth of field issues, but there are cases when it indeed can be used, just not as often."

    Solution: when more DOF is needed with a larger sensor 60 or 80, move the camera back and crop. End result is still equal res (or greater) compared to a smaller sensor 40 or 50 meg. However, for creative use of less DOF, stay where you are.

    Same applies in the rare case where Moiré shows up with a 60 or 80 meg file ... move the camera a bit.

    If I can get more megapixels without sacrificing other important performance (low color cast, high dynamic range, long exposure etc) then yes give it to me, as long as it is reasonably easy to post-process. Today's sharpening algorithms are not designed for sharpening images that have vastly outresolved lenses / diffraction.

    Solution: use the maker's post program. Phocus does a great job in sharpening a 60 meg file. I'm sure C1 also does.

    -Marc

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Solution: use the maker's post program. Phocus does a great job in sharpening a 60 meg file. I'm sure C1 also does.
    Yes, I was rather addressing the general trend. 80 megapixels is not extreme, but say if the next step 120 megapixels with even more color cast issues, requiring even more complicated lens designs for our beloved tech cams, would that be a welcome development? I question if more resolution is the feature we desire the most now when we are up at this level. But maybe it is?

    Personally I desire more balanced systems where lenses, sensors and shooting technique collaborate in concert. I don't like the trend that some of the simple distortion-free Schneider Digitar lenses are pushed towards becoming obsolete due to that the (current) small-pixel sensors don't manage to capture light at low angles. I also question if it is wise to design tech cam lenses that peak at f/8 or even f/5.6 rather than f/11.

    Sure it is okay to have ultra-resolution alternative, but I still think there is a niche of moderate resolution and moderate cost lenses and cameras - a niche with growth potential, and I don't see that niche getting very much addressed with the latest products. There's still lower res larger sensor backs being sold but not so much of the new developments is taking place there.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    What you are referring to is a split in the tech camera world - many say that the 33-40 mp backs are the sweet spot, yet most of the higher end discussion focuses on the IQ180 and 80 mp. What gives?

    More resolution is certainly desirable, with greater information in the image and the ability to crop. However, there is another issue - that of system balance, as "lesser" backs are more forgiving. An upgrade in resolution to the 80 mp back has a ripple effect throughout one's system, with the new back cost, but also needing newer lenses, more processing speed, storage costs, etc. Its an intense upgrade, not quite foregiving on the gear, but one needing the best equipment.

    With film, 6x6 shots on 120 roll film had inherent flexibility advantages over 4x5. While the larger film was more awkward, it gave better results, but at that time, it wasn't more costly - if anything, perhaps the MF gear was more expensive?

    As the big dogs move onto bigger backs, there is plenty of room behind them. There are many very good lenses to enjoy, nicely priced as others move on. For everyone on the bleeding edge, there's room in their wake.
    Last edited by Geoff; 27th February 2013 at 04:42.

  38. #38
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Guys I think some of us have over reacted to Theodoros's post. He has huge experience with fine art reproduction and specifically with multi-shot products and If he believes that his camera is the best then there's nothing wrong with that and it certainly works well for him and for his business

    However since the Aptus-II 12 came out (followed by the IQ180 and Credo 80) we are seeing a definite transition in many of the big museums, archives, galleries and repro-houses to the simpler, quicker and more flexible and efficient workflow of the single-shot products. Capture One 7's new processing engine has taken this systems one step further as it handles fine detail such as text, paper/ canvas texture and paint better than before.

    I hate the term "game changer" but for most of these applications the Aptus-II 12 was indeed one...

    Yair
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    What you are referring to is a split in the tech camera world - many say that the 33-40 mp backs are the sweet spot, yet most of the higher end discussion focuses on the IQ180 and 80 mp. What gives?

    ... However, there is another issue - that of system balance, as "lesser" backs are more forgiving. An upgrade in resolution to the 80 mp back has a ripple effect throughout one's system, with the new back cost, but also needing newer lenses, more processing speed, storage costs, etc. Its an intense upgrade, not quite foregiving on the gear, but one needing the best equipment.

    ...
    As the big dogs move onto bigger backs, there is plenty of room behind them. There are many very good lenses to enjoy, nicely priced as others move on. For everyone on the bleeding edge, there's room in their wake.
    Good question Geoff . here is my answer

    The Elephant Gun shooters dont care about the issues that stop non elephant gun shooters buying elephant guns... and Elephant gun shooters dont want to talk about these issues because they aren't issues...

    Hope this helps
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by yaya View Post
    Guys I think some of us have over reacted to Theodoros's post. He has huge experience with fine art reproduction and specifically with multi-shot products and If he believes that his camera is the best then there's nothing wrong with that and it certainly works well for him and for his business

    However since the Aptus-II 12 came out (followed by the IQ180 and Credo 80) we are seeing a definite transition in many of the big museums, archives, galleries and repro-houses to the simpler, quicker and more flexible and efficient workflow of the single-shot products. Capture One 7's new processing engine has taken this systems one step further as it handles fine detail such as text, paper/ canvas texture and paint better than before.

    I hate the term "game changer" but for most of these applications the Aptus-II 12 was indeed one...

    Yair
    You are a good bloke Yair - but sorry mate - I feel very sorry for serious museums and galleries who get sucked into trying to replicate what a multi shot back delivers with a single shot anything...

    You know very well that the multi-shot backs destroy any single shot elephant gun in that field..

    If you want absolute best money can buy quality for that stuff - the choices don't include anything that Phase One or Leaf make...now do they?

    Love my Leaf back though

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    You are a good bloke Yair - but sorry mate - I feel very sorry for serious museums and galleries who get sucked into trying to replicate what a multi shot back delivers with a single shot anything...

    You know very well that the multi-shot backs destroy any single shot elephant gun in that field..

    If you want absolute best money can buy quality for that stuff - the choices don't include anything that Phase One or Leaf make...now do they?

    Love my Leaf back though
    Ditto. For color accuracy, there is no single shot that can touch a Multi-Shot ... even the old ones are better.

    -Marc

  42. #42
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    What you are referring to is a split in the tech camera world - many say that the 33-40 mp backs are the sweet spot, yet most of the higher end discussion focuses on the IQ180 and 80 mp. What gives?

    More resolution is certainly desirable, with greater information in the image and the ability to crop. However, there is another issue - that of system balance, as "lesser" backs are more forgiving. An upgrade in resolution to the 80 mp back has a ripple effect throughout one's system, with the new back cost, but also needing newer lenses, more processing speed, storage costs, etc. Its an intense upgrade, not quite foregiving on the gear, but one needing the best equipment.

    With film, 6x6 shots on 120 roll film had inherent flexibility advantages over 4x5. While the larger film was more awkward, it gave better results, but at that time, it wasn't more costly - if anything, perhaps the MF gear was more expensive?

    As the big dogs move onto bigger backs, there is plenty of room behind them. There are many very good lenses to enjoy, nicely priced as others move on. For everyone on the bleeding edge, there's room in their wake.
    Well many of us will agree 40 mpx is a sweet spot in many ways. The real issue with that is the sensor size in 40mpx is a crop sensor as is the P45+ and pretty much everything in Phase /Leaf that is until you hit a 60 mpx back. I wanted Full Frame sensor so to get that I had to go with the IQ 160 or IQ 180 but outside of that I was content with the IQ 140. This is part of the issue plus I think also even though having a 40 mpx was nice its always nice to be a little over what you absolutely need. I never had a client complain about the 60 mpx back i had and if anything they where damn impressed by it, certainly they did not have one. LOL

    Another issue NEVER heard before on this or any forum is figuring out lens conversions. Okay lets face facts every damn one of us STILL think in 35mm frame size for instance you walk into a scene and think immediately damn I need my 24mm. Now in medium format you need to do the math whats a 24mm on my crop sensor and frankly its a PITA . I found it so much easier for instance with doing that with a Full Frame sensor. Sounds weird because they both are simple math but I just had a block with the crop sensor. I maybe not be alone on this one either.

    Also another major fact almost every deal or upgrade path has been on full frame sensors that actually lets say made some sense money wise. I'm getting this for that and i get 60mpx in the deal. Lets face it that is a marketing push on our heads, we all know it but the real deals have been on Full Frame which equals 60 mpx. Yea i know our arms are twisted like knots, damn marketing. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    The problem I have with the latest backs is not that they have too high resolution, but that they work too poorly with traditional tech cam lens designs, and I find strong value in those: lower cost, more robust / lower risk for alignment errors (due to fewer lens elements), distortion free, lower weight. Low color cast sensors allow for unique lens designs that cannot be found in DSLRs.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect that it is harder to make small pixels with low color cast than larger ones, and therefore I'm a bit concerned with the current trend as a tech cam user. Traditional large format lens designs seems to be on the way out and soon every tech cam lens has a gazillion of lens elements in them just like on any DSLR to be able to support high resolution at large apertures in a race for megapixels, and focus stacking will become as common as in microscopy to be able to make use of all pixels. Maybe that is what attracts the typical customer, I don't know. I'd like to see something more balanced.

  44. #44
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Why I went with the IQ 160 , there really is no major issues with lenses. The 24 XL yes. The SK 28 a little but my bet now with C1 7.1 that slight magenta I got is now gone as they keep making C1 better in every version. After that its normal limitation stuff with any system or back. Sure no question the crop sensors may seem better but you still need to get wider lenses which are the touchy areas. Now Yair, Doug and such can correct me but Dalsa sensors are better on tech cams than Kodaks but there never has been a Full Frame Kodak sensor at least in Phase either.

    No question these decisions are not easy to consider. You really need to do your homework and this forum is pretty good at helping people.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  45. #45
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Pete next time you visit any of the 10 botanical gardens around OZ ask them what do they use for digitisation

    Marc I am glad that all those institute who are moving to 1-shot (if they haven't done so already) are doing their own tests and evaluations instead of reading these threads...

    When was the last time you've used an Aptus-II 12 or a Credo 80 for reproduction? For the last 2.5 years I've been doing these tests and demos on a weekly/ monthly base and the pudding suggests that our recipe works really really well!

    We are not talking 1-2 cameras here and there...here's a little example to a medium-scale project: Qatar funds £8.7m Gulf-archive project at British Library - The Art Newspaper
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  46. #46
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Why I went with the IQ 160 , there really is no major issues with lenses. The 24 XL yes. The SK 28 a little but my bet now with C1 7.1 that slight magenta I got is now gone as they keep making C1 better in every version. After that its normal limitation stuff with any system or back. Sure no question the crop sensors may seem better but you still need to get wider lenses which are the touchy areas. Now Yair, Doug and such can correct me but Dalsa sensors are better on tech cams than Kodaks but there never has been a Full Frame Kodak sensor at least in Phase either.

    No question these decisions are not easy to consider. You really need to do your homework and this forum is pretty good at helping people.
    Of course if you are only using a tech camera, full frame is rather irrelevant and I think that there's a strong argument that the IQ140 is almost ideal unless you want ultra ultra wide. It will work with any of the tech lenses including the 24XL problem child that the FF sensors can't fully cover. You are also in the sweet spot of all of the glass with less edge issues, or potentially more shift/rise possibilities due to the smaller sensor that needs covering.

    I was initially going to go with the IQ140 myself as the upgrade from my Aptus 65 (my P40+ was a cross-grade and so somewhat of an upgrade problem). However, in the end I knew that I'd want full frame anyway (it's in my nature ) and I succumbed to Guy's GAS Jedi mind trick techniques ... and I'm happy I did actually but purely for tech cams I could have gotten away without it. Yes, 40mp was & is plenty. 60mp is nice but not a HUGE increase overall.
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 28th February 2013 at 02:53.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #47
    Senior Member yaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,168
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    38

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    We've just published Stephen Wilkes' user story today. Stephen uses an Aptus-II 12 on an M679. There's a link to a CBS piece at the bottom: Stephen Wilkes: Full Control with Leaf Aptus-II 12

    I've not seen the large prints in person but I'm told that they are jaw-dropping beautiful!

    Yair
    Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One | Mamiya Leaf
    e: [email protected] | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | yaya's blog

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoros Fotometria View Post
    Yeah... there are color differences, out of my experience Dalsa sensors seem more natural than Kodak, (the Sinar 75 version of the 33mp in particular) ...that's why I said earlier to Bob that I would ...prefer the ...Kodak sensor!!! Indeed, Dalsa may be more natural, but what about taste ...or a little over saturation for that matter? Don't forget Tim that Dalsa is more neutral than film ...and my 528c when shot in multishot more neutral than ...everything (not only Dalsa)!!!
    Agreed - if you like the colour of any sensor then that's fine but coming from a point of view of loving film and working in the landscape, the IQ180 is closer to my preference.

    Try looking at the images here..

    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...t-2/800px.html

    Tim

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    I think that there's a strong argument that the IQ140 is almost ideal
    ...and P45+ *is* ideal!

    Some shift stats of landscape orientation:
    70mm image circle (wide angle Rodenstock Digaron-S)
    54x40: 2.3mm/5.8% rise/fall, 1.8mm/3.3% shift left/right
    48x36: 7.5mm/21% rise/fall, 6mm/12.5% shift left/right
    44x33: 10.7mm/32% rise/fall, 8.9/20% shift left/right

    90mm image circle (wide angle Schneider Digitar, Rodenstock Digaron-W)
    54x40: 16.0/40%, 13.3/25%
    48x36: 20.0/55%, 17.2/36%
    44x33: 22.7/68%, 19.8/45%

    I think a suitable shift range concerning composition possibilities is that you can get horizon up to 1/3 of a portrait shot (which actually is the shift range used in for example the TS-E 24 and PC-E 24 for Canon and Nikon). More than that is overkill, less is a bit limiting I think.

    With that target, the 48x36/49x37 crop with 90mm image circle is the best balance. The 70mm image circles is a bit limiting even for the 44x33 size, then I rather go for 54x40 at 90mm.

    The widest at ~90mm is Schneider Digitar 28XL I suppose, which is ~20mm 135 equivalent for 48x36, ~18mm for 54x40 and ~22mm for 44x33. And we have the Digaron-S 23mm which yields ~17mm for 48x36, ~15mm for 54x40, and ~18mm for 44x33.

    Concerning lens designs it seems to me that 90mm lens circle with 6um pixel resolving power target makes it feasible with the traditional simple lens designs large format is known for, while when you go for higher resolving power you get much more complicated designs.

    I think it would be unfortunate if future digital back development will only hold very small pixels and high color cast issues, which would lead to that these designs are made obsolete and put out of production. Because if you only need ~40-~50 megapixels you can get a very well-balanced system with the traditional distortion-free lower cost lower weight and more robust designs.
    Last edited by torger; 28th February 2013 at 05:12.

  50. #50
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Who needs more than 40mp on a MFDB?

    Now if there was an IQ145+ then I think that many people would be in digital back heaven. Well, certainly anyone who wants or needs to shoot for longer than a couple minutes or so. The P45+ in an IQ or Credo form factor with the enhanced UI really would hit the spot.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •