Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

  1. #1
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi,

    The new sensor is quite expensive, so I guess that many readers are not going to be able to buy it.

    It has also been suggested that the lenses Hasselblad has are simply not good enough for that sensor, a statement about which I have significant doubt.

    Now, contrary to some common belief, you don't need to have a 50k$ sensor to discover it's abilities. The sensor is made by Sony and Sony has a sensor that is very close in pixel size to the IQ3 100. So you can shoot say a Hasselblad V series lens on a Sony A7rII and get a pretty decent estimate of how it would perform on the IQ3 100. Now, the Sony A7rII sensor is not identical in design to the IQ3 100MP, but sensor development is happening in small steps.

    I have some shots taken with the A7rII mounted on my HCam Master TSII published here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...nses_on_A7rII/

    Two of these are shifted stitches, left shift, center, right shift. So these cover a large part of the image circle, I would say those images hold up well. They have relatively mild sharpening, "Scenic" preset in Lightroom 6.

    I have also compared a 100/3.5 Planar shot on the A7rII with a 100/3.5 Planar shot on the P45+. Same subject but shot a year apart and from a different angle. That image is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...5_comp/SS2.jpg


    This image shows a different crop on the A7rII to illustrate that the blinders are not causing colour moiré:
    "]]Object not found!

    But, monochrome moiré is visible on another window:


    I would say that it is clear enough from these images that some Hasselblad lenses hold up to 4.5 micron sensors. Hasselblad H-lenses are probably better performers than the V-lenses in general It may be that Phase One's Schneider lenses are better. Capture One has quite intensive sharpening as default and that may give those lenses a bit of extra "shine".

    Some of the Hasselblad H-series lenses are calculated for 60 mm image circle and would have issues with the corners on the IQ3 100MP.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 8th January 2016 at 23:30.

  2. #2
    Member modator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Italy
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    32

    Thumbs up Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi Eric,
    I agree with You, about the developement of the sensor's every company invest Years of engineering to obtain small steps in quality Year after Year.

    A customer that can be a small company or a big one, can only ask to have some characteristic I.E. a different COLOR FILTER ARRAY (Bayer) to choose from few option's already tested and reliable (filter already developed).... a different IR window glass with different AR coatings etc. etc...

    It's like one buying a camera can choose the color of the leather and the grip, nothing else.

    Big step was made by the CMOS sensor technology but the physics can't be circumvented, Medium Format to me have it's strength not only by the dimension of sensor, but specially by the dimension of PIXEL that have to be LARGER than APS-C or FF camera's on the market, If this is in part true for the first try the IQ250 / IQ350, became very weak on the new development.

    But it seems that today the count of pixel is more important than the Quality / Signal to Noise Ratio / Color Precision / Uniformity that a system of this range SHOULD HAVE (also considering prices).

    Going on this route MFD shooter and affiliate have to face more and more comparison between their 100K$ systems (camera + HR lenses etc.) between compact camera's / mirrorless / cell phone's (I remember one with 40Mpixel or more... ) .

    and this is pitiful !

    Best regards, Domenico.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi,

    A few reflections.

    The first one is that I would be pretty sure that Sony delivers only the sensor and not the complete package with sensor glass. On the CCDs it is Phase One who install the sensor glass and I would think that it is the same case with the Sony sensors. The cover glass can be replaced.

    The CFA is a different thing as it is a part of the manufacturing process, and that also applies to micro lenses.

    Now, regarding pixel sizes I have a different view:

    Let's assume nine micron pixels. Let's assume that such a pixel would be able to hold 200000 electrons. Now, if we split it into four we would get for pixels holding 50000 electrons each. The four pixels could contain a full RGBG quartet of colour information. The small pixels would be able to handle a line pair corresponding to 111 lp/mm (or so). The large pixel would not resolve any spacial information. We need at least two pixels to that.

    Another way to see it is that we need a 9x9 micron area to fully describe a point with 4.5 micron pixels. With the larger pixels we need a 18x18 micron area to describe a single pixel.

    Now, the lens I have used here resolves in excess of 200 lp/mm on high resolution film, it does it at very low contrast, though. So it has detail that the large sensor pixels cannot handle. That detail will be converted to aliases, that is fake detail. This is very much visible here


    Or here


    If you check the image full screen, you would see that the image on the left has very little artefacts. It may not look great at actual pixels, but it is true.

    Now if we look at the other parameters:
    • Noise is dependent on captured photons. The small sensor will capture the same number of photons per surface area as the large one. So noise level will be the same, except when peeping actual pixels.
    • Engineering DR is captured photons counted as electrons / readout noise in electrons. The four small pixels wil have twice the readout noise, so we loose an EV in DR. But that applies only to engineering DR. Photographic DR will more depend on shot noise. Readout noise is very low on modern CMOS sensors.

    So, the benefit from the small pixel sensor is an image that is better rendered and has fewer artefacts. It will sharpen better, it will have less aliasing and it will print better. The only case it is at disadvantage when we look on screen at actual pixels. In that case we see the image at twice the magnification.

    Best regards
    Erik






    Quote Originally Posted by modator View Post
    Hi Eric,
    I agree with You, about the developement of the sensor's every company invest Years of engineering to obtain small steps in quality Year after Year.

    A customer that can be a small company or a big one, can only ask to have some characteristic I.E. a different COLOR FILTER ARRAY (Bayer) to choose from few option's already tested and reliable (filter already developed).... a different IR window glass with different AR coatings etc. etc...

    It's like one buying a camera can choose the color of the leather and the grip, nothing else.

    Big step was made by the CMOS sensor technology but the physics can't be circumvented, Medium Format to me have it's strength not only by the dimension of sensor, but specially by the dimension of PIXEL that have to be LARGER than APS-C or FF camera's on the market, If this is in part true for the first try the IQ250 / IQ350, became very weak on the new development.

    But it seems that today the count of pixel is more important than the Quality / Signal to Noise Ratio / Color Precision / Uniformity that a system of this range SHOULD HAVE (also considering prices).

    Going on this route MFD shooter and affiliate have to face more and more comparison between their 100K$ systems (camera + HR lenses etc.) between compact camera's / mirrorless / cell phone's (I remember one with 40Mpixel or more... ) .

    and this is pitiful !

    Best regards, Domenico.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Hi,

    A few reflections.

    The first one is that I would be pretty sure that Sony delivers only the sensor and not the complete package with sensor glass. On the CCDs it is Phase One who install the sensor glass and I would think that it is the same case with the Sony sensors. The cover glass can be replaced.

    The CFA is a different thing as it is a part of the manufacturing process, and that also applies to micro lenses.

    Now, regarding pixel sizes I have a different view:

    Let's assume nine micron pixels. Let's assume that such a pixel would be able to hold 200000 electrons. Now, if we split it into four we would get for pixels holding 50000 electrons each. The four pixels could contain a full RGBG quartet of colour information. The small pixels would be able to handle a line pair corresponding to 111 lp/mm (or so). The large pixel would not resolve any spacial information. We need at least two pixels to that.

    Another way to see it is that we need a 9x9 micron area to fully describe a point with 4.5 micron pixels. With the larger pixels we need a 18x18 micron area to describe a single pixel.

    Now, the lens I have used here resolves in excess of 200 lp/mm on high resolution film, it does it at very low contrast, though. So it has detail that the large sensor pixels cannot handle. That detail will be converted to aliases, that is fake detail. This is very much visible here


    Or here


    If you check the image full screen, you would see that the image on the left has very little artefacts. It may not look great at actual pixels, but it is true. If you click on the image the browser will load an actual pixel screen dump, but you probably need to click onece more for full size.

    Now if we look at the other parameters:
    • Noise is dependent on captured photons. The small sensor will capture the same number of photons per surface area as the large one. So noise level will be the same, except when peeping actual pixels.
    • Engineering DR is captured photons counted as electrons / readout noise in electrons. The four small pixels wil have twice the readout noise, so we loose an EV in DR. But that applies only to engineering DR. Photographic DR will more depend on shot noise. Readout noise is very low on modern CMOS sensors.

    So, the benefit from the small pixel sensor is an image that is better rendered and has fewer artefacts. It will sharpen better, it will have less aliasing and it will print better. The only case it is at disadvantage when we look on screen at actual pixels. In that case we see the image at twice the magnification.

    Best regards
    Erik






    Quote Originally Posted by modator View Post
    Hi Eric,
    I agree with You, about the developement of the sensor's every company invest Years of engineering to obtain small steps in quality Year after Year.

    A customer that can be a small company or a big one, can only ask to have some characteristic I.E. a different COLOR FILTER ARRAY (Bayer) to choose from few option's already tested and reliable (filter already developed).... a different IR window glass with different AR coatings etc. etc...

    It's like one buying a camera can choose the color of the leather and the grip, nothing else.

    Big step was made by the CMOS sensor technology but the physics can't be circumvented, Medium Format to me have it's strength not only by the dimension of sensor, but specially by the dimension of PIXEL that have to be LARGER than APS-C or FF camera's on the market, If this is in part true for the first try the IQ250 / IQ350, became very weak on the new development.

    But it seems that today the count of pixel is more important than the Quality / Signal to Noise Ratio / Color Precision / Uniformity that a system of this range SHOULD HAVE (also considering prices).

    Going on this route MFD shooter and affiliate have to face more and more comparison between their 100K$ systems (camera + HR lenses etc.) between compact camera's / mirrorless / cell phone's (I remember one with 40Mpixel or more... ) .

    and this is pitiful !

    Best regards, Domenico.

  4. #4
    Senior Member bab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    250
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Erik
    So in your opinion a printed image from the ar2 at say 20x24 would rival a printed image from a 6um sensor?

  5. #5
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi,

    I don't know if I understand your question. My point here is that small pixels render subject detail better. The A7rII has the same pixel size as the new IQ3-100MP back. So it can be used to estimate aspects of that back. The IQ3-100MP has similar size pixels but 2.4x more of them.

    If you mean if my 42 MP Sony A7rII with 4.5 micron pixels matches my 39 MP Sony A7rII, when making 20x24 prints, I have not done that experiment yet…

    Just to say, those experiments are not easy to make at least not outside studio/lab conditions. The main reason is that is hard to make two identical images to print.

    Based on prior experience, I would be extremely surprised if I could observe any difference in sharpness from a shot from my A7rII and my Hasselblad 555/ELD and P45+ combo if similar processing was used on both raw images in any size of print.

    It of course depends quiet a bit on lenses chosen for each.

    When I was shooting 24 MP DSLR and 39 MP MFDB I found that I had very difficult to observe a difference between the two in 16"x23" prints without a loupe. The files from the P45+ I used were better (had more detail) but I could not see that in the print. Going up one size the difference started to be obvious. Eyesight is involved in this.

    These are from a recent shot, P45+ with Macro Planar 120/4 at f/11 on top and Sony A7rII with 90/2.8G Macro at f/8 bottom. Larger aperture was used on the Sony A7rII to match depth of field.

    Name:  20151225-CF047043_focus_crop.jpg
Views: 921
Size:  373.7 KB
    Name:  20151225-_DSC3485_focus_crop.jpg
Views: 922
Size:  475.3 KB

    Bokeh crops below:

    Name:  20151225-CF047043_bokeh_crop.jpg
Views: 918
Size:  300.7 KB
    Name:  20151225-_DSC3485_bokeh_crop.jpg
Views: 916
Size:  341.0 KB

    The raw files are here:
    Access forbidden!
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...5-_DSC3485.dng

    It is OK to share this images, based on principle of "fair use".

    Now, if the question is would the A7rII be able to match an IQ3-100MP in 20"x24" prints, so I would guess that we need larger than that to see an obvious advantage from the 100 MP back.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by bab View Post
    Erik
    So in your opinion a printed image from the ar2 at say 20x24 would rival a printed image from a 6um sensor?
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 10th January 2016 at 09:34.

  6. #6
    Member modator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Northern Italy
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    32

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi Eric,
    the interesting question now is: "A similar (but smaller sensor) with same pixel and built" is capable of the same performance ?
    In this case I can have the same IQ with a SONY 4,6 microns Pixel APS-C or FF sensor, it's just a CROP of the same image made with an IQ3100 ?

    I admit that Your consideration about pixel density Moirè wise are correct, anyway it's only an effect of the fact that the resolution is rivaling or surpassing the resolving power of the lens.

    If in this class of sensor moire became secondary, the main issue I think is the Signal to noise ratio that for now it seems better with pixel size a little bit larger.

    But after all with a 100MP let's say with little noise at ISO 6400 it's possible to obtain a good (half resolution) 25MP image that is adequate for almost everything in the market.

    Best regards, Domenico.

  7. #7
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Quote Originally Posted by modator View Post
    In this case I can have the same IQ with a SONY 4,6 microns Pixel APS-C or FF sensor, it's just a CROP of the same image made with an IQ3100 ?
    It seems to me because the sensor technology is so good and so similar between cameras we are getting back to the days of film, where the film was the same in all the cameras. MF will have the same advantages (and disadvantages) it did with film. Assuming the same angle of view and perspective, a larger capture area will collect more light and will not have to be magnified so much.

    It's just that there is so much more detail in each format it has become harder to justify the larger format.
    How glorious a greeting the sun gives the mountains! - John Muir

    davechewphotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi,

    I don't argue with your findings.

    The idea with my original posting was to:

    • See if older Hasselblad lenses were up to snuff with the new 100 MP sensor. Finding: probably yes.
    • Discuss/demonstrate that a Sony A7rII is useful to check resolution effects of the 100 MP back.
    • Discuss/demonstrate that 100 MP resolution can be beneficial compared to say 39 MP.


    In the last couple days it has been shown that the new 100 MP sensor in the IQ3-100MP can outperform both the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7rII in DR. The advantage shown is quite a bit more than expected.

    Yes, I am pretty sure that there is little difference between a IQ3-100MP cropped down to 24x36 mm and a Sony A7rII, but the improved DR on the IQ3-100MP would mean it would be possible to pull some more detail in deep shadows. The same applies to the Nikon D810 also, but the Nikon has slightly larger pixels.

    So what I see now is that Phase One has probably the best sensor ever made for a consumer device. That said, it probably has some limitations with large beam angles. Obviously, it is very expensive. Will be interesting if we will see more affordable cameras/backs coming from say Hasselblad and Pentax.

    A small point, using the new Sony sensor in a digital back probably takes much less engineering work than designing a CCD based device. That is because Sony has essentially done all the hard work. That would make it possible for other manufacturers to enter the market. But, I would guess that barriers to entry are non trivial and it is a relatively small market. So, I don't really count on some Chinese company offering a 100MP MFDB at a very low price.

    Best regards
    Erik




    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    It seems to me because the sensor technology is so good and so similar between cameras we are getting back to the days of film, where the film was the same in all the cameras. MF will have the same advantages (and disadvantages) it did with film. Assuming the same angle of view and perspective, a larger capture area will collect more light and will not have to be magnified so much.

    It's just that there is so much more detail in each format it has become harder to justify the larger format.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    It seems to me because the sensor technology is so good and so similar between cameras we are getting back to the days of film, where the film was the same in all the cameras. MF will have the same advantages (and disadvantages) it did with film. Assuming the same angle of view and perspective, a larger capture area will collect more light and will not have to be magnified so much.

    It's just that there is so much more detail in each format it has become harder to justify the larger format.

    Agree, the sensors are largely similar now with minor exceptions, so it all boils down to what lenses one can put on the front and what camera controls allow the best use of the combination - live view, autofocus, frame rate etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    ...................
    The idea with my original posting was to:

    • See if older Hasselblad lenses were up to snuff with the new 100 MP sensor. Finding: probably yes.
    • Discuss/demonstrate that a Sony A7rII is useful to check resolution effects of the 100 MP back.
    • Discuss/demonstrate that 100 MP resolution can be beneficial compared to say 39 MP.


    In the last couple days it has been shown that the new 100 MP sensor in the IQ3-100MP can outperform both the Nikon D810 and the Sony A7rII in DR. The advantage shown is quite a bit more than expected.

    Erik
    Thank you Erik, as always a very thoughtful analysis.

    It seems that at this point the size of the print is what matters the most as far as sensor resolution/size is concerned. At prints below 20"X24", (I dare say with a good, well lit shot at even larger size) it is hard to differentiate between two cameras if both have good lenses in front. And since the ultimate resting place of most images is a print on paper (if you post on the web none of this matters anyway), there is no real need to chase the megapixels unless you wish to print really large.

    However, the story does not end here obviously. There is a lot more to it than simply resolution and pixel size.

    I feel that we have reached a point in camera and imaging technology where there is enough resolution both on sensor and in lenses to satisfy even the biggest pixel-peeping glutton and the majority of printmakers.

    What will continue to drive the industry and what I for one is looking forward to are innovations and advancements that will make the process of image-making even easier, especially in situations where it is difficult to do so. I am not a tech-cam guy and fiddling with complex equipment requiring multiple adjustments while the light is fading is not my cup of tea (apologies to the many excellent photographers here).

    For me the great leaps forward would be:

    1. Increased DR (as Erik pointed out, the IQ3 100 is already ahead of the game) - so I do not need to use GND filters for sunrise/sunsets etc.
    2. Ability to shoot high ISO with less penalties (a corollary of 1.) so I can capture wildlife shots when the animals are most active - just before or after sunrise/sunset.
    3. Better AF esp with moving subjects in low light.
    4. Higher buffers to allow longer bursts of continuous shooting (the Nikon D5 is a great example).
    5. All of this in the smallest possible package.

    A wild wish would be a MF sensor in a small body with the above improvements. An all-in-one magic camera.

    On my last visit to Africa, I took four cameras - the Canon 1DX and 7D2 for action, the Pentax 645 for the resolution when the animals were still (or the light was a bit low) and the A7R for the wide angle, high resolution landscape shots. I did use all four cameras quite a bit, but it would have made my life so much easier if the technologies were combined.

    A crazy thought perhaps, but one can always dream.....my vision of a small camera body with a high resolution super sensor and great lens on the front is slowly but surely crystallizing.

    And sorry for causing thread drift.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    I doubt if the sensor itself is much more expensive than others sensors. {Admin delete: language not in line with our forum policies.}
    Last edited by Jack; 12th January 2016 at 14:11. Reason: language not in synch with the level of our forums

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    I doubt if the sensor itself is much more expensive than others sensors. {Admin delete: language not in line with our forum policies.}
    The value of anything is what people are willing to pay for it. Applies equally to a Picasso, a Ferrari and Phase cameras.

    The good thing is you can always say no

  12. #12
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Hi,

    Yes and no. A larger sensor is much more expensive to make. With the 50 MP 1.3X crop sensors we have seen a great span of pricing, and I think that it may become the case with the new 100 MP sensor, too.

    The value of a product is essentially what a significant number buyers are willing to pay. And you need to look at the whole package, of course, an MFD without cameras and lenses is pretty useless.

    My guess would be that the Sony sensor is cheaper than the Dalsa sensors. Sony is dominating the CMOS sensor market and I guess they have a very well tuned manufacturing process. But I would also guess that the 100 MP MF sensors are much more expensive to make than 24x36 sensors.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    I doubt if the sensor itself is much more expensive than others sensors. {Admin delete: language not in line with our forum policies.}

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    On my last visit to Africa, I took four cameras - the Canon 1DX and 7D2 for action, the Pentax 645 for the resolution when the animals were still (or the light was a bit low) and the A7R for the wide angle, high resolution landscape shots. I did use all four cameras quite a bit, but it would have made my life so much easier if the technologies were combined.
    Pradeep maybe it is a bit frustrating that technologically speaking (with what is already available) it is possible to make the camera system you want/need, today.

    But I doubt we are going to see it in many years to come. For some the A7RII is almost there (thanks to the usability of Canon glass via adapters) but in reality it still has a long way to go for others.

    I mean, you could use a XF system with the IQ3 100mp back for everything except the action shots, where the 1Dx would come in. The Phase lens line is now pretty complete. So you could just take 2 systems.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken_R View Post
    Pradeep maybe it is a bit frustrating that technologically speaking (with what is already available) it is possible to make the camera system you want/need, today.

    But I doubt we are going to see it in many years to come. For some the A7RII is almost there (thanks to the usability of Canon glass via adapters) but in reality it still has a long way to go for others.

    I mean, you could use a XF system with the IQ3 100mp back for everything except the action shots, where the 1Dx would come in. The Phase lens line is now pretty complete. So you could just take 2 systems.
    Ken, I found the original IQ180 to be too slow for any useful wildlife photography - inaccurate AF, slow frame rate, awful low-light capability, no image stabilization etc. Then I bought the Pentax and it was a game changer in so many ways, the only draw back being the still slow frame rate, although it was the same as my 5D that I took to Kenya in 2007 and used so well. Goes to show how spoilt we are for choices now and how much more we've come to expect from our equipment.

    I also wanted to try a MF camera system for wildlife photography after reading the account of Andy Biggs and others. It was intriguing as my own style has now graduated towards more of a 'scenic' shot with an animal in it rather than tight portraits. The smaller Sony served the 'wide-angle' needs.

    From my own tests, I am convinced that the new lineup of Zeiss lenses for the Sony E mount are superior to anything in the Canon arsenal. Up to 85mm, Canon is way behind and I don't need anything for the Sony longer than that. So I am not keen on using the adapter plus Canon glass on my Sony, except if I ever need long lenses.

    About the new XF and IQ3 100. It is a really good product and kudos to Phase for developing it. But for me it is too little and too late. My only beef with Phase has been the very poor (IMHO) upgrade policy which is NOT mentioned up front when you buy their products, in fact it is part of the sales pitch that they have a great upgrade policy which is a misleading fact. I've said enough on this topic elsewhere on this forum.

    In any case, even if I were to get the latest offering from Phase, I would still have to deal with a heavy body/back and really heavy lenses. My camera gear already weighs over 40 lbs on a typical trip to Africa -which is actually lightweight by the usual standards (my buddy has a Nikon system with no MF bodies and he carries almost 70lbs). As you may know, weight is a huge problem when traveling to and within Africa. With the Pentax, the legacy lenses are not only super light but super sharp as well (they are lighter in weight and sharper than Canon).

    So in the end, I am still waiting for Sony/Pentax to deliver my ideal camera. I know Canon will never do it, but their current offerings are still the best for most wildlife photography.

    Here are a few sample photos - I know people love seeing photos and after all, a picture.......

    And once again, I believe I've seriously hijacked this thread.

    The reason I am posting these images is to illustrate, from my POV that sometimes a certain camera/lens combo suits a situation better than others and hence my decision to take and then use all four cameras.

    The first photo here is something I've posted before, a silhouette of two giraffes against the sunset, taken long after the sun had gone down. The camera is the Pentax 645 with the superb 150mm f2.8 lens, wide open at ISO 1600 and 1/160 sec. I chose this combo because I needed the fastest lens I had at that focal length and because I knew shadow recovery was better with the Pentax than the Canon. The shots I took with the Canon of the same scene had a lot more noise. This lens is not stabilized and hence the shutter speed had to be at least 1/150.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Londolozi_20150604_P6Z4570.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	394.3 KB 
ID:	115782

    The second shot is taken with the Canon 1DX, 70-200 f4 lens at 70mm, ISO 2000, f5.6, 1/320 sec. The tiger siblings were mock-fighting about 40 feet away and the action was frenetic. The light was low but I had to use the 1DX because of its superb AF, high frame-rate and because the 70-200 lens was mounted on it. I could have used the 7D2 but it had a longer zoom on it and there was no time to change lenses, it was all happening too fast.

    I can't seem to figure out how to separate attachments from text. Will post attach more photos in the next post..........
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tigers_20150529_1DX_7415.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	981.2 KB 
ID:	115783  
    Last edited by Pradeep; 12th January 2016 at 19:43.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Some reflections on a 100 MP sensor for full frame 645

    The third shot I am posting was taken with the Canon 7D2, the 100-400L Mark II at around 220mm (which gave me an effective FL of around 350mm with the crop factor), ISO 400, f5.6 (wide open for this lens at this FL) and 1/250 sec. The reason I used this combo was that the 7D2 provided an extended reach with the 400mm lens, effectively making it a 160-640 lens just in case I needed it, the frame rate and AF are almost as good as the 1DX and the shutter release is much softer. We waited for hours for the cub to appear out of the bush and then it played for about 5 minutes with its mother while we filled our cards with images. One of my most satisfying wildlife experiences ever.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tigers_20150531_D2_8026.jpg 
Views:	50 
Size:	981.1 KB 
ID:	115787


    The last image is taken with the Sony A7R with the 16-35 f4 lens at f22, ISO 200, 1/60 sec. It was an impromptu shot, inspired by the sunset, the location and the last drink on our last day. I had the champagne glass in my left hand crossed in front of me while I shot rather shakily with the camera held in my right. I could not have gotten this shot with any of my other cameras.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Londolozi_20150604_DSC4224.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	218.0 KB 
ID:	115788

    The point of this rather lengthy post - and my apologies for taking up the bandwidth and your time, not to mention the completely OT nature - is that one camera/lens does not work for everybody or for every situation. I went to Africa with the intent of trying out these kind of images knowing full well that my Canon gear may not be good enough. I was fortunate that I was able to take the gear that I did, mainly because I did not take my huge 600mm Canon lens (sold it a while ago) and my lens choice with the other bodies was limited intentionally. Still, it was daunting although the results were very satisfying.

    Each of these images above could only have been taken with the type of camera/lens I used - you could substitute other brands for some. At least that is my opinion. The current technology as yet does not offer a single system that would work in all these situations, although I truly believe it may be possible, at least in terms of a sensor and body, to get there in the next five years or so.

    For my next trip I may not take the Pentax because I feel the Sony A7R2 with the new Batis lenses is almost as good, and a lot lighter.

    Thank you for looking.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

Posting Permissions

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