Why did you go back to full frame DSLR?

[GrahamWelland]

Jack

I understand the trade offs although I'm not sure necessarily that more pixels & DR are correlated - tonality yes certainly but DR? Maybe you can explain that one?

 

[pedro39photo]

The diffraction limit of d800 of f8 is for some works a big negative point.
If a D900 came in the future with 50MP with limit of f5.6 any one want more pixeis??? in the 35mm format?

The future of digital photography MP its optic limitations, going to big sensor its the future.

We saw this happen in last 3 years:

- 35mm 1.5x crop sensor to full sizes sensors.
- Tiny 1/8" compact cameras sensors to 1" or APS size
- The DMF 645 - P20 (36x36mm) - to 1.1x and now almost full size 645 sensors.

The "gold fever of high MP" will end very soon, the future of digital photography in the next 10years will be in inovation the optics or the way sensors capture the light or dynamic focus in RAW software.

 

[Jack]

Jack

I understand the trade offs although I'm not sure necessarily that more pixels & DR are correlated - tonality yes certainly but DR? Maybe you can explain that one?

I knew I'd take heat for this one... It's just what I've noticed, regardless of MF or DSLR or generations -- for example, a D800 has better usable DR than a P25+, but is pretty equivalent to a P45+. P/!Q 60's are better, 80's a little better still. And I'm talking usable or effective DR, not some lab's measured DR.

 

[ondebanks]

I knew I'd take heat for this one... It's just what I've noticed, regardless of MF or DSLR or generations -- for example, a D800 has better usable DR than a P25+, but is pretty equivalent to a P45+. P/!Q 60's are better, 80's a little better still. And I'm talking usable or effective DR, not some lab's measured DR.

I suspect that this observation is in the context of equal-sized prints, rather than pixel peeping at 100% on screen? When you double or quadruple the number of pixels but keep the print the same size, the effective merging of adjacent pixels can improve the DR at the shadow end.

Another clue is that on a per-pixel basis, the CCD in the P25+ actually has slightly better DR than that in the P45+. This is from Kodak's own datasheets and their consistent testing methods.

Ray

 

[paulraphael]

I'll answer the question backwards. Here's what would have to happen for me move from a dslr to a tech camera:

1. The price of the backs would have to come down 75%, or I'd have to have a whole lot more money.

2. Based on what I understand, the ergonomices would have to be much improved, especially live-view focussing (I come from a large format film background, and really appreciate a decent ground glass or its digital faccimile).

And of course, when and if these things come to pass, my decision would be made easier if small format hasn't closed the gap even more. The IQ2 series has already taken one of my requirements off the board: I need long exposures.

If 1 and 2 don't come along, I'll keep fingers crossed for high-end mirrorless cameras. The dslr really should be obsolete very soon. We're just waiting for digital viewfinder technology to be good / efficient enough. As soon as small format can get rid of the strong retrofocus lenses, there will no longer be fundamental differences between the formats. Only matters of degree.

 

[torger]

Try Linhof's new ground glass, it's quite nice for the wides. When/if a decent live view becomes available (and affordable) I'll surely stop using the sliding back though, despite that I like the old-school feeling of using ground glass. There's much extra weight in the sliding back and poor light conditions is always a challenge.

I'm afraid that even when the mirror box is removed, which it will be (mirror box design is dead it just don't know it yet), we'll be stuck with strong retrofocus lenses because sensors have very poor response with low angles of incoming light. As far as I understand the old fat pixel CCDs are still the best in this regard, and all CMOS sensors are worse(?) than most medium format CCDs.

Symmetrical wides also vignette heavily and have small max apertures by design which make them less practical for live view.

The future will probably be much like we see on compacts today, wide lenses will have heavy distortion and then be corrected in digital.

I do like the current tech camera system with symmetrical wides, lenses with well-balanced correction in regards to sensor resolution (not too much correction, not too little) that no digital post-processing correction is required, and I hope it will continue to exist in the future but I think it will die. Rationally there's little value in having optical systems that deliver the "finished image" to the sensor, processing digitally to fix abberations and distortion is smarter. I don't like it as much though...

When all systems converge towards similar designs I think the larger formats will have problems to stay relevant in general photography. Today "being different" in various aspects I think is as least as important as the quality advantage.

 

[fotografz]

I'll answer the question backwards. Here's what would have to happen for me move from a dslr to a tech camera:

1. The price of the backs would have to come down 75%, or I'd have to have a whole lot more money.

2. Based on what I understand, the ergonomices would have to be much improved, especially live-view focussing (I come from a large format film background, and really appreciate a decent ground glass or its digital faccimile).

And of course, when and if these things come to pass, my decision would be made easier if small format hasn't closed the gap even more. The IQ2 series has already taken one of my requirements off the board: I need long exposures.

If 1 and 2 don't come along, I'll keep fingers crossed for high-end mirrorless cameras. The dslr really should be obsolete very soon. We're just waiting for digital viewfinder technology to be good / efficient enough. As soon as small format can get rid of the strong retrofocus lenses, there will no longer be fundamental differences between the formats. Only matters of degree.

Isn't #1 true for almost anything? Drop the price of a Lexus IS by 75%, and I'd be driving one tomorrow.

#2 seems solvable. I'm surprised it is still an issue given the state of optical design ... or the potential for better digital transference to the ubiquitous smart phone.

I thought one of the IQ-II Backs now has long exposures. How long is "long"?

Small format mirrorless is tanking according to the makers themselves. Even though more traditional DSLRs are also down in sales, percentage wise people are generally 1) choosing them over the newer tech by a good margin ... or 2) choosing to keep their older DSLRs, which is a very telling factoid in itself. Add 1 and 2 together and you have a clear preference indication. Doesn't matter what we, the minority, think or do.

High-end photo gear is funded by general consumer sales, and an over-all 48% drop in one year is a pretty strong signal that what is being done now is not working. What innovations will turn that around is anyone's guess. I'm sure the lights burn late into the night in Japan these days.

One business article I read suggested that larger sensors, not more pixels, is the only real way forward ... IF the makers can reverse the years of "pixel wars" marketing ingrained into the public's minds and make size the new criteria. That, and connectivity to how people use images these days.

If implemented, the above bodes well for MFD since sensor size is a given. Personally, I'd welcome a FF 645 modern sensor of 30 to 40 meg that would revisit the charms and character of the old tech fat pixel backs, but with less or none of their short comings.

- Marc

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I too would love a FF 645 sensor. think of all the lenses we could choose from if "fat backs" were in production - sensors evolved, but not all lenses did.

Foveon sensors, IMO, will play a big part in the future of photography.

 

[Jack]

High-end photo gear is funded by general consumer sales, and an over-all 48% drop in one year is a pretty strong signal that what is being done now is not working.

Cell phones are the numero-uno cameras of choice for most users right now. The hurdle as I see it is two-fold: 1) Cell phones have gotten as good as P&S cams of 2 generations ago and include video; 2) Most users display their images digitally now, and if they print, they're building the little books online or at the one-stop shops like Kinko's or similar -- and here 4mp is more than adequate.

Then it gets worse, factor in the current state of image processing apps, and the cell phone is very attractive option. My wife and daughter have gone to classes on cell phone processing -- forget Hipsta and Instagram, you can manipulate any photo and upload it to wherever via PhotoWizard.

As a family, we put out a calendar every year and give them to friends. Mostly it's places we've traveled to and each of us (5 total) contribute at least one of the images. Not surprisingly, I usually supply the extra image or two -- and this year one of those was taken with my iPhone. I now use my iPhone instead of a P&S, and have got to say that they print up GREAT at 8x10 calendar size...

I am now printing less and less, but am supplying digital images and output services more and more. I see a future with the need for big cameras and more pixels diminishing even further. Sorry...

Story #2. I had lunch with a fashion photographer several months back whose images are generally printed large. He always shot MF. He'd cull his images and present a set to his client. He said invariably a client will choose one of his less than technically perfect captures because of something else they like in it -- and they never seem to notice or simply cannot see the nits. So he decided to shoot with a DSLR on a shoot. His client loved the finished product and of course it was a ton easier on the photographer. His conclusion is his clients couldn't see the differences, or if they could see them, they didn't say anything or didn't care --- and thus he now shoots with a 36MP DSLR because it's so much more convenient for him.

Story #3. Marc and I met on one of the original Leica internet forums about 15 years ago (seriously!). At the time, digital was in it's infancy -- and we all knew film was far superior. (And we both still love it I am sure -- I don't shoot it anymore, don't know about Marc.) A short couple of years later, Marc was selling me his 4MP Canon 1D as he upgraded to a higher MP Kodak I believe. And it wasn't long before he was shooting a 16MP DB on MF. Anyway, point is at about this time we both started predicting the end of film. Back then we both figured most films would be gone by 2020, except maybe Tri-X (seriously). We were probably a little over-optimistic about film's lifespan. And now we may be similarly overly optimistic about HR digital's future...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The other problem is everyone wants something small. We see it daily here folks going to mirrorless more often than anything else. Fueled by great little Sony cams and such. Leica products as well and with Leica maybe pushing the size factor but the quality good enough and smaller than DSLR to make it worth it. For Pro use I have no choice but as a hobbyist you can pick whatever your comfortable with and the trend is no bigger than a M cam. The other issue and been seeing this for several years clients just don't care as much as before. It's a accepted fact quick ,fast and cheap. It's sad but most clients just don't really care after those 3 criteria. Frankly anymore the only time it's a pleasure to me is shooting for me and my needs. I will always shoot the best job I can for clients but lets be real here its about the money. I sold out 40 years ago on that fact. I miss a tech cam but that is more personal to me than business related. I'm taking the day off and go drive north to shoot and cool off. The heat has got to my brain I need some chilling. LOL

I'm walking out the door with not one Nikon lens but a Leica, sigma and a Zeiss. Now that's a whole discussion on its own. I would rather walk out the door with a 36mpx M10 with three lenses that are small , lightweight and good. Oh well hitting the road and something to thing about or not.

I know one thing for sure I think less about gear anymore and more about content. Honestly its the only thing that will keep me above the bullshit in this business.

 

[Leigh]

I have both a Nikon D800e and a Hasselblad CFV-39, both about 36 Megapixels.

They're two different cameras.
That was true with film (which I still shoot in both formats) just as it is now with digital capability.

The Nikon is a street camera, for news, candids, "real life images", etc.

The Hasselblad is for slower, more disciplined shooting.

If I want serious resolution I shoot 8x10 film.
It'll blow the pants off of any digital camera.

- Leigh

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I know one thing for sure I think less about gear anymore and more about content. Honestly its the only thing that will keep me above the bullshit in this business.

Amen :angel:

 

[Shashin]

High-end photo gear is funded by general consumer sales, and an over-all 48% drop in one year is a pretty strong signal that what is being done now is not working. What innovations will turn that around is anyone's guess. I'm sure the lights burn late into the night in Japan these days.

That may simply be from market saturation and customer fatigue--some cameras over the last year have pushed the technology, so it can't be that. The computer industry went through the same thing with customers buying new computers or new OS every six months or a year. Eventually, folks got tired of buying and were really happy with what they had and the computer industry took a big hit--try buying a Gateway. I think this is why Adobe is trying the CC subscription model to keep sales going.

I am sure there are sleepless nights in the camera industry right now. They may have to go back closer to the film camera business model of keeping a model in production for longer. And there are benefits to that. Not that people won't complain, but releasing models faster never stopped people for complaining either.

 

[kdphotography]

....
I know one thing for sure I think less about gear anymore and more about content. Honestly its the only thing that will keep me above the bullshit in this business.

Damn, Guy. That 12-step program of yours is working!

The last time I said anything like that, Don thought somebody hacked my account.... Honestly, though, in business it's always about content.

Hey---did anybody see that fb post from B&H? They've got the Leica M Monchrome in stock....

 

[Leigh]

And I'm talking usable or effective DR, not some lab's measured DR.

I hear this same nonsense in so many different disciplines.

This statement usually comes from people whose personal methods differ so significantly from standard practice that they're unable to duplicate lab results, so they claim the lab is wrong.

Film manufacturers go through thousands of test exposures, using controlled conditions for both exposure and processing that greatly exceed the accuracy commonly encountered in the field.

How, pray tell, can laboratory measurements be somehow inaccurate, misleading, or wrong?

- Leigh

 

[ondebanks]

I hear this same nonsense in so many different disciplines.

This statement usually comes from people whose personal methods differ so significantly from standard practice that they're unable to duplicate lab results, so they claim the lab is wrong.

Film manufacturers go through thousands of test exposures, using controlled conditions for both exposure and processing that greatly exceed the accuracy commonly encountered in the field.

How, pray tell, can laboratory measurements be somehow inaccurate, misleading, or wrong?

- Leigh

In fairness to Jack, I understand what he's getting at. Even though I will always advocate the scientific method and proper testing. And graphs are always welcome :salute:

Dynamic range is a crude estimator of performance. It only tells you something about the sensor at two intensity points, the extremes of its operational range. It says nothing about what goes on in between - how much signal, how much noise, the relative contributions of different types of noise, the wavelength selectivity of the signal. It's one of those "never mind the quality - feel the width!" metrics.

One needs to plot the full noise model of the sensor to get a more complete picture, and even that is not everything: it should be repeated at different exposure times, temperatures, and ISO settings.

If I walk into an all-you-can-eat buffet with an empty stomach from fasting, and a determination to fill it to bursting point , those are the two endpoints of my stomach's "dynamic range". How I progress from empty to full can take many paths at the buffet; multiple bowls of porridge would do the trick; as would a fine-dining banquet of Michelin-starred delicacies. I know which path I would pick!

Ray

 

[Shashin]

+1. Everyone likes to quote the numbers, but few understand the significance. And like Ray, I also believe in standardized testing. But that only takes you so far, especially with applied photography for creative images.

 

[paulraphael]

Isn't #1 true for almost anything? Drop the price of a Lexus IS by 75%, and I'd be driving one tomorrow.

Not exactly. I'm not just talking about something coming down into my fantasy price range (although for the purposes of this conversation, that would be reasonable. This is why I haven't switched). But more significantly I'm talking about a sense of value. I've worked with practically every film format and a couple of digital formats, and from what I see, MF backs, while awesome, are very difficult to justify as a good value. Or anything close to it. There are a small number of commercial photographers whose circumstances make it a good value, and there are hobbyists who are wealthy enough to not care. I belong to neither group. But I do admire what the backs are capable of.

#2 seems solvable. I'm surprised it is still an issue given the state of optical design ... or the potential for better digital transference to the ubiquitous smart phone.

I agree 100%. And am waiting for it to happen.

I thought one of the IQ-II Backs now has long exposures. How long is "long"?

They say it can go up to an hour, I think. But I only need several minutes, and it seems to do this easily. This the first big wish checked off of my list.

Small format mirrorless is tanking according to the makers themselves.

I'll take your word for this, but it doesn't really speak to my point. I think technologically, the SLR is going to be made obsolete by a class of mirorless cameras that has yet to be introduced. If they can create a digital viewfinder that's as good as the best optical ones, there will be no downsides. Speculation, of course, but I just don't see the justification for continuing with this century-old, Rube-Goldberg arrangement of mechanical mirror boxes and compromised lenses.

Moving past the SLR model would have the same implications for both small and medium formats.

 

[dougpeterson]

They say it can go up to an hour, I think. But I only need several minutes, and it seems to do this easily. This the first big wish checked off of my list.

IQ260 can do an hour at ISO140 at room temperature.

There is a long background story on how this is accomplished, but if you're just looking for the spec - there it is.

 

[dougpeterson]

I knew I'd take heat for this one... It's just what I've noticed, regardless of MF or DSLR or generations -- for example, a D800 has better usable DR than a P25+, but is pretty equivalent to a P45+. P/IQ 60's are better, 80's a little better still. And I'm talking usable or effective DR, not some lab's measured DR.

I hear this same nonsense in so many different disciplines.

This statement usually comes from people whose personal methods differ so significantly from standard practice that they're unable to duplicate lab results, so they claim the lab is wrong.

[...]
How, pray tell, can laboratory measurements be somehow inaccurate, misleading, or wrong?

In fairness to Jack, I understand what he's getting at. Even though I will always advocate the scientific method and proper testing. And graphs are always welcome :salute:

Dynamic range is a crude estimator of performance. It only tells you something about the sensor at two intensity points, the extremes of its operational range. It says nothing about what goes on in between - how much signal, how much noise, the relative contributions of different types of noise, the wavelength selectivity of the signal. It's one of those "never mind the quality - feel the width!" metrics.

One needs to plot the full noise model of the sensor to get a more complete picture, and even that is not everything: it should be repeated at different exposure times, temperatures, and ISO settings.

If I walk into an all-you-can-eat buffet with an empty stomach from fasting, and a determination to fill it to bursting point , those are the two endpoints of my stomach's "dynamic range". How I progress from empty to full can take many paths at the buffet; multiple bowls of porridge would do the trick; as would a fine-dining banquet of Michelin-starred delicacies. I know which path I would pick!

+1. Everyone likes to quote the numbers, but few understand the significance. And like Ray, I also believe in standardized testing. But that only takes you so far, especially with applied photography for creative images.

A lab test is only as useful as the criterium it's measuring. I assume, based on their clean technical writing that they are correctly implementing a reliable test of dynamic range based on the classic electro-optical definition.

Unfortunately for photographers this definition only loosely correlates to dynamic range as defined by "how much shadow-to-highlight scene range can I capture in a way that will be pretty/natural/aesthetic"

Two camera systems can have identical dynamic ranges as determined by algorithm but have very different dynamic range regarding how much of the scenes highlights and shadows can be pleasantly reproduced in a final print.

Examples:
- difference in character of noise (gaussian, uniform, clumpy, color or monochromatic) which makes the noise more or less pleasant for a given person's preference ("film like" vs "digital/artifacty" noise can be two descriptions ascribed to two images which have - technically - the same amount of noise as numerically measured)
- linearity of color (do the shadows bias towards a certain color; do all colors respond similarity as they fall into shadows)
- tonal smoothness (is there any feeling of posterization or other abrupt transitions or do the transitions from deep shadow to quarter tone smooth and pleasing?)
- roll off into highlights, are near-blown tones rendered as a smooth decay into no-information zones or do they create strange color/tone artifacts

It's not dissimilar to saying a rock concert, a baby screaming, and the engine-roar can all have similar absolute loudness in decibels, but I think we'd all agree they differ in their pleasantness to listen to.

Moreover DXO and other metrics I've seen published (like the spec sheet from the sensor manufacturers) only tell you the range of raw data during the primary capture without post processing. The application of the dark frame (the loose equivalent of the iPhone 5's ability to use a second microphone to listen for ambient noise to increase the clarity of the signal) and the highly-catered debayering and detail-extraction and characteristic-noise suppression/shaping of the combination of a Phase One or Leaf raw file and Capture One is not taken into account. Nor are the cross-effects of non-blown-channel reconstruction can do to subject matter which is blown in one channel but not another (see also: many a blue sky) for which linearity of color and purity of color response (dependent on, amongst other factors, the spectral transmission characteristics of the bayer pattern used) helps/hurts various cameras. I don't care (other than abstractly) what the 1s and 0s of the raw file are; I care what can be extracted and used in a pleasing way in the raw processing software. DXO would claim that a IQ180 has the same dynamic range whether you process it in C1v6 or C1v7 and they wouldn't be wrong in the strict sense (the back did not, in fact, change it's response) but their answer would not be relevant to someone taking pictures and processing in both C1v6 and C1v7 (the user of v7 would find they could consistently use parts of the scene further into it's highlights and shadows).

Finally DXO tends to measure backs/cameras when they are first released (not always the case, sometimes the test comes years after release). And anyone who has owned a P1 back or Leaf Credo back from the first day of release (my specific area of greatest experience, this may be true of other backs) knows that the noise/dynamic-range has improved as Team Phase One continues to develop and improve the firmware that controls the sensor exposure, readout, and dark frame routines. This is not a big deal, but another example how the question they are answering is not necessarily the question a photographer is asking.

My former life was as a programmer for a data analysis suite for lab replication and analysis of field vibration measurements correlated to acoustic recordings in the automative industry for the purpose of improving the experience of a driver/passenger vis a vis strange squeaks and rattles experienced on given road surfaces. So lab measurements and the mentality of variable isolation, numeric representations of real world phenomenon, and the scientific method are not foreign to me. But even in that job, all of our effort was to identify potential problematic areas/scenarios/conditions - the final analysis was always to put a person in an actual car, replicate the appropriate conditions, and then ask them "how annoying is that squeak from 1-10" or "is squeak A or squeak B more annoying"? In any number of fields quantified lab measurements are of immense value but they are very rarely the entire picture (pun intended).

The story is rarely as simple as a few numbers .

This is one of the primary reasons why we emphasize real-world evaluation (rentals, demos, raw file catalog) so heavily. If someone wants to know how much dynamic range a particular back has my first instinct is always to put said back in their hand and tell them to go shoot the pictures they normally would and see how the camera/files handle. Scientific? Not really, but in my experience it gives the customer the best understanding of what they should expect from the system once-purchased.