The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Why I would think that the X2D and GFX 100 fill be reasonably priced...
- Thread starter ErikKaffehr
- Start date
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
MFD is a small market. I don't think Sony will mess with two different sensors for 44x33 mm. They will offer a single one, 100 MP.
They will probably make a few runs of the old 50 MP sensors. But, putting development into 50 MP? I don't think we will see that!
Best regards
Erik
MFD is a small market. I don't think Sony will mess with two different sensors for 44x33 mm. They will offer a single one, 100 MP.
They will probably make a few runs of the old 50 MP sensors. But, putting development into 50 MP? I don't think we will see that!
Best regards
Erik
Shashin
Well-known member
Which is a pity. 100MP file are unnecessarily large. 50MP will be more than sufficient for the vast majority of uses, which I define is using a 44" printer. I can't tell you how unexcited I am about filling up my storage with 100MP files.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
While I have yet to feel constrained by the mere 37.5MP of the Leica S, I do look in awe at my old 60MP files from a borrowed IQ160. Would I print larger than 30x40 if I had the pixels? Maybe 1 print in 10 years. I have regular access to a 44" printer and I still haven't printed anything bigger than 30x40.
Of course, if the ~65MP S(008) comes out, I'm getting it!
On topic, I sure hope reasonably priced Hassy and Fuji 100MP bodies come out to put pressure on Leica!
Best,
Matt
Of course, if the ~65MP S(008) comes out, I'm getting it!
On topic, I sure hope reasonably priced Hassy and Fuji 100MP bodies come out to put pressure on Leica!
Best,
Matt
retcheto
Member
Part of the attraction of 100MP for me is to be able to crop quite aggressively and still have plenty of pixels left. I prefer to frame everything in camera perfectly but that doesn’t always happen. And some scenes just don’t allow it. I figure I should be able to get away with fewer lens changes
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
Having smaller pixels would be beneficial, as they make for a cleaner image.
For a better view: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Dollars.jpg
The images here were shot with a P45+ that has 39 MP, with 6.8 micron pixels. The other camera used was a Sony Alpha 77 SLT with an APS-C sensor, with 3.9 micron pixels. The P45+ images were shot with an 80/2.8 Planar CF while the Sony images were shot with a 70-400 zoom at 85 mm. Shooting distance was 4 m.
As you can see, the large pixels of the P45+ don't deliver a clean image at f/5.6 and f/11, stopping down to f/22 results in a clean image, but sharpness is lost.
This is not really about the number of megapixels but about the size of the pixels. Any detail a digital sensor can not resolve it will yield back as lower frequency artefacts. The sharper the lens is the more artefacts. This is simply a fact. It seems that the resulting fake detail is not very offensive, unless it shows up as color moiré.
The detail here is a good demonstration:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Nyquist1_cropped.jpg
Both the small pixel A77 and the large pixel P45+ show aliasing, but the aliasing on the P45+ is offensive.
Why don't we see this so often in practice? Many subjects don't have high contrast, high frequency detail. Also, workflow issues like less than pin point accurate focus, small apertures and camera vibration can all reduce the transferred amplitude at Nyquist.
As a example, Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) has noticed that the Leica S had a lot of "christmas tree" artefacts, but stopping down to f/11 reduced that problem pretty effectively, by diffraction.
Now, raw converters are doing heroic efforts to hide these artefacts, but it may be interesting what is really fed to the raw converter:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Temp/Capture.PNG
As you can see, in this case the raw image is full of colour artefacts. As I say, raw converters do a heroic effort to reconstruct the image, but it may be better to feed them with a clean image.
In a sense, it would make a lot of sense to go with APS-C if you don't need more than 24 MP. It also makes a lot of sense to go 100 MP on 44x33, if you have good lenses. From aliasing side it will behave as 24 MP on APS-C, but obviously, you could print much larger, like printing A0 instead of A2.
Best regards
Erik
Having smaller pixels would be beneficial, as they make for a cleaner image.
For a better view: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Dollars.jpg
The images here were shot with a P45+ that has 39 MP, with 6.8 micron pixels. The other camera used was a Sony Alpha 77 SLT with an APS-C sensor, with 3.9 micron pixels. The P45+ images were shot with an 80/2.8 Planar CF while the Sony images were shot with a 70-400 zoom at 85 mm. Shooting distance was 4 m.
As you can see, the large pixels of the P45+ don't deliver a clean image at f/5.6 and f/11, stopping down to f/22 results in a clean image, but sharpness is lost.
This is not really about the number of megapixels but about the size of the pixels. Any detail a digital sensor can not resolve it will yield back as lower frequency artefacts. The sharper the lens is the more artefacts. This is simply a fact. It seems that the resulting fake detail is not very offensive, unless it shows up as color moiré.
The detail here is a good demonstration:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/Nyquist1_cropped.jpg
Both the small pixel A77 and the large pixel P45+ show aliasing, but the aliasing on the P45+ is offensive.
Why don't we see this so often in practice? Many subjects don't have high contrast, high frequency detail. Also, workflow issues like less than pin point accurate focus, small apertures and camera vibration can all reduce the transferred amplitude at Nyquist.
As a example, Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) has noticed that the Leica S had a lot of "christmas tree" artefacts, but stopping down to f/11 reduced that problem pretty effectively, by diffraction.
Now, raw converters are doing heroic efforts to hide these artefacts, but it may be interesting what is really fed to the raw converter:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Temp/Capture.PNG
As you can see, in this case the raw image is full of colour artefacts. As I say, raw converters do a heroic effort to reconstruct the image, but it may be better to feed them with a clean image.
In a sense, it would make a lot of sense to go with APS-C if you don't need more than 24 MP. It also makes a lot of sense to go 100 MP on 44x33, if you have good lenses. From aliasing side it will behave as 24 MP on APS-C, but obviously, you could print much larger, like printing A0 instead of A2.
Best regards
Erik
dave.gt
Well-known member
Will,
That is too logical, but I am with you. Besides I will never be able to afford more than what we are using and it is just as well. Our clients are delighted and they could not care less about the technical jargon or even what brand of camera or sensor is used.
When I was shooting film, no one asked about the Leicas I used. This last year and a half, no one cared or asked about the Hasselblad camera. It was invisible and I love it that way.
Time to get out and shoot, enough talk for me, carry on...:thumbs:
Erik Lundqvist
Member
Didn't Sweden win it yesterday?
Abstraction
Well-known member
I agree. Fuji, Pentax and Hasselblad have created the affordable MF market. They have been successful beyond their expectations. They won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. My guess is that the cameras will have the same MSRP as the current set at introduction. $10k is the line in the sand. I don't think they'll cross it. $8500 would be my guess for Fuji and $9500 for Blad.
erick.boileau
Member
I'd like to get a X2D but I dont want 100mp , or Binning = 25mp
Last edited:
Abstraction
Well-known member
I already sold my wife and donated my kids to science, so I'm all set...I'm just selling everything I own in anticipation...
(well not quite)