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!
Sony directly rivals MFDB on view camera use, announces lossless 14bit raw
- Thread starter T.Dascalos
- Start date
T.Dascalos
Not Available
I guess that you refer to this thread that you started on Lula... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103862.0... Well, that is a news thread...
I thought that its best to relate the new abilities of the A7 series to the ability of it to replace an MFDB in combination with a tech camera if one chooses it for use with a mini view camera (like the Actus) and then discuss how the MFDB market (especially the pro market) is affected because of these developments... you don't have to participate to the conversation if you think that the matter shouldn't be discussed...
Never the less, the MFDB market keeps shrinking as more and more of the applications that where performed with them now have (direct) competition from smaller sensors that cost much less and I feel that you never had any intention of discussing this in your thread since IYO the only reason that people should buy MFDBs is because they are better than DSLRs in portraiture/or fashion (that IMO - and others- can be performed quite satisfactory with DSLRs too)...
After all, you don't use your Credo 40 with a view or tech camera... do you? I thought that its not the right tool for the job... So you better stick discussing how you will improve your images further if you upgrade to an XF body and let the view camera set-up discussion for the people that are familiar with it and its uses.
Yep, I started a thread about this topic in the GENERAL NEWS section of Lula, addressing Sony shooters without adding unnecessary comments about how the sky is falling down on MF.
Because I have the intellectual capacity of an adult and not a 6 year old. Might be an alien concept to you.
Moving on from this thread now because people who post here are fortunately, smart enough to smell the trolls and not feed them, unlike Lula.
Cheerio.
Because I have the intellectual capacity of an adult and not a 6 year old. Might be an alien concept to you.
Moving on from this thread now because people who post here are fortunately, smart enough to smell the trolls and not feed them, unlike Lula.
Cheerio.
T.Dascalos
Not Available
Good thinking... its best if you stick to discussions on how your Credo 40 compares with your D800 and let us trolls discuss the other areas of photographic applications and the future of MFDBs with them... :ROTFL:
The reason I left the other place, do you know any other forums?
This is a very strange comment.
First one ought to define performance.
The classic definition is what the image looks like to a standard viewer at a standard distance.
There are many measurements that can be used to assist in quantifying image appearance such as:
1) resolution
2) color fidelity (all sorts of technical variables go into this)
3) Dynamic range which is further affected by the substrate or viewing technique (monitor, print, backlit print, illuminant)
4) gamma
5) quantization (or some might say posterization)
6) Psycho-visual factors (nobody really likes natural saturation or contrast)
7) Subject matter high frequency components
8) focal length, subject distance, and reproduction ratio
9) distortion
There are also factors as relate to the photographer and his personal choice of tools and techniques.
There are several compression techniques that are employed by camera manufacturers in a misguided attempt to scrimp on storage. The best lossless techniques are truly lossless and the sensor data is recoverable just the way it was prior to compression.
A lossy compression technique is an engineering defect
By correcting a defect that MFDBs don't have in the first place, it is hard to say exactly what was achieved other than the correction of a bug or misfeature.
Percentage performance comparison is rather fruitless as well as comparison might be close for one use or technique but very different for another.
Please avoid these sorts of claims unless you can back it up with observable data.
It rained all day yesterday in the desert where I live. Does that mean it is no longer a desert? No it simply means that it rained.
Since so many images posted today on the net are rather small jpegs (compressed I will note) I can maintain with some backing that the average smartphone is already at more than 95% adequacy for use by most folks. Sony's bug correction will make it no better at competing with those phones.
thanks
-bob
Last edited:
Thanks for letting me know, I had no idea that there were already better solutions out there. Again, keep up the great work!
There is always the Pentax Forum.
Maybe it’s time to dispense with terms like 35mm, MF etc. altogether in the digital world. Just hangovers from the film days, that really have little or no meaning outside of marketing blurb (was the P1 H5 a 35mm digital back or a medium format back? It was marketed as the latter, but had a '35mm sized' sensor; go figure).
IIRC it was Guy who mentioned that the A7RII is basically a digital back - and, from what I see and read about how it is being used, I couldn’t agree more. It's the H5 of 2015.
Perhaps we should just stick to MP in describing a capture device (maybe enhanced by pixel size and sensor tech e.g. 80/5.2μ/CCD), rather than how it relates in overall surface area to a piece of acetate covered in a light sensitive emulsion. Doesn’t trip off the tongue so well, but probably more appropriate.
IIRC it was Guy who mentioned that the A7RII is basically a digital back - and, from what I see and read about how it is being used, I couldn’t agree more. It's the H5 of 2015.
Perhaps we should just stick to MP in describing a capture device (maybe enhanced by pixel size and sensor tech e.g. 80/5.2μ/CCD), rather than how it relates in overall surface area to a piece of acetate covered in a light sensitive emulsion. Doesn’t trip off the tongue so well, but probably more appropriate.
T.Dascalos
Not Available
After all, the MFDBs 15 years ago where all of 36x24mm sensor size and none called them anything else than ...MFDBs! And yes... A Sony A7 is used exactly as an MFDB if used on view camera and thus it can only be compared with one...
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi Bob,
Thanks for those comments. I guess I can agree with most.
A small point, JPEG is lossy compression, so any JPEG posted ever is actually compressed and mostly quite highly compressed. That is the reason we use it. Uncompressed data just has a lot of unsignificant data and is mostly not very usable on the web.
Now, I agree on the virtues of raw data, just keep in mind data presented on the web is almost compressed. That also mean that almost all images displayed on the net do have raw compression artefacts.
In a sense, the A7rII may be a game changer. Question is which games it may have been changed, but that has very little to do raw format but much to do with capabilities.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for those comments. I guess I can agree with most.
A small point, JPEG is lossy compression, so any JPEG posted ever is actually compressed and mostly quite highly compressed. That is the reason we use it. Uncompressed data just has a lot of unsignificant data and is mostly not very usable on the web.
Now, I agree on the virtues of raw data, just keep in mind data presented on the web is almost compressed. That also mean that almost all images displayed on the net do have raw compression artefacts.
In a sense, the A7rII may be a game changer. Question is which games it may have been changed, but that has very little to do raw format but much to do with capabilities.
Best regards
Erik
"And yes... A Sony A7 is used exactly as an MFDB if used on view camera and thus it can only be compared with one..."
not quite; it may have almost the same pixel count, but on a smaller sensor; the registration distance prevents the use of wide angle lenses (on the Actus), if anything, you might compare it to a "cropped" MFdb
not quite; it may have almost the same pixel count, but on a smaller sensor; the registration distance prevents the use of wide angle lenses (on the Actus), if anything, you might compare it to a "cropped" MFdb
Two things I noticed that makes this still not viable for me are:
1. Wides - main reason for going tech was using 23-40mm lenses. Longer than this was not too much of an issue with the DF. On the CMOS sensors, including MFDB sensors, this is still an issue
2. Movements - most tech cameras have 15-20mm of movement in any direction. You need to move a 36/24 sensor +/- 10mm in any direction to just match the sensor size of a 54/40 sensor. After this, you're not left with much and nowhere close to the image circle limits of most lenses.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I'm not so sure we will see a world of difference with the new uncompressed raw. Sure it will fix some things that the compressed showed up in certain situations but it's not going to change the overall quality of file. I could be wrong but it certainly won't be anything posted on the web. I'm not even going to bother to test the difference to be honest. Now the demise of MF compared to 35 is just not going to happen. Sure we have gotten closer to MF with these big higher resolution cameras but like the general rule of thumb still exists bigger is better. Too me the biggest difference is the tonal range of file . If 35 sensors can make up that character difference than it be even closer. Just not sure we will see that for quite sometime. I'm okay with that as MF is some of the best files around and the Sony, Nikon and Canon systems keep pushing the envelope and produce very nice files. Now I think in the future things may change with sensors but so will MF and we see that change to CMOS today. I think for some of us it maybe a disappointment to see CCD backs fade out of the market. Regardless of what limitations CCD had they still produced outstanding files. Honestly for me I'm left a little cold to these comparisons anymore. I just want functional cameras that are fun to work with and enjoy.
Brands and formats mean very little to me they always have if I smell greener pastures with a brand I'll just switch . I've done it so many times already but going back to MF would be tough right now. It's not much different when I left a few years ago. Like to see even bigger jumps to consider it again. I leave my door wide open on these choices. For me at this point in time I find I'm just looking for something fun to shoot. I'm just bored on a lot of cameras. Guess I'm looking more to inspire me to shoot.
Brands and formats mean very little to me they always have if I smell greener pastures with a brand I'll just switch . I've done it so many times already but going back to MF would be tough right now. It's not much different when I left a few years ago. Like to see even bigger jumps to consider it again. I leave my door wide open on these choices. For me at this point in time I find I'm just looking for something fun to shoot. I'm just bored on a lot of cameras. Guess I'm looking more to inspire me to shoot.
V
Vivek
Guest
The bottom line is that if the difference can been seen, then it is of value, if not then it makes no difference.
For me at least, the MF lens/sensor size combination can be seen and is much like the difference I can see in say a Leica lens vs a Nikon lens when I am going for detail.
Much of the time though I shoot models, and issues such as camera weight and handling come to the fore.
Once you have hand-held a Phase Df with back and 120mm lens through a four hour shoot you will understand this to the extreme and many types of model photography (ahem, at least what I shoot) don't benefit from additional resolution except for the photographer's private enjoyment when viewing files of eyelashes at 100%. So for me at the whole issue of the death of this or that or the convergence of a to b make no sense at all.
I prefer to shoot architecture and short-haul (or when I have a vehicle to tote the stuff) landscapes with a tech camera, MF lenses, and a db. Why is because it gives me more options in composition.
When I want to shoot fast, as in moving subjects, it is more that autofocus or hyperfocal type issue, so my Nikons tend to get a workout.
For those situations where I want to travel light, it is a bag with the Leica M240 and three lenses.
I am considering an article for which I already have a title "Over the hill and back again" where I intend to describe why I went from shooting the Leica M8 to abandoning it to now shooting the M240.
I suppose I am an anti-fanboy since I am pretty fickle about what camera I use. It all depends....
The Sony, although it has some good points, just never worked for me mainly due to its shape and its viewfinder which I found especially irritating.
Gamechangers are few and far apart. I think that digital was one.
Camera phones might have been the second.
-bob
For me at least, the MF lens/sensor size combination can be seen and is much like the difference I can see in say a Leica lens vs a Nikon lens when I am going for detail.
Much of the time though I shoot models, and issues such as camera weight and handling come to the fore.
Once you have hand-held a Phase Df with back and 120mm lens through a four hour shoot you will understand this to the extreme and many types of model photography (ahem, at least what I shoot) don't benefit from additional resolution except for the photographer's private enjoyment when viewing files of eyelashes at 100%. So for me at the whole issue of the death of this or that or the convergence of a to b make no sense at all.
I prefer to shoot architecture and short-haul (or when I have a vehicle to tote the stuff) landscapes with a tech camera, MF lenses, and a db. Why is because it gives me more options in composition.
When I want to shoot fast, as in moving subjects, it is more that autofocus or hyperfocal type issue, so my Nikons tend to get a workout.
For those situations where I want to travel light, it is a bag with the Leica M240 and three lenses.
I am considering an article for which I already have a title "Over the hill and back again" where I intend to describe why I went from shooting the Leica M8 to abandoning it to now shooting the M240.
I suppose I am an anti-fanboy since I am pretty fickle about what camera I use. It all depends....
The Sony, although it has some good points, just never worked for me mainly due to its shape and its viewfinder which I found especially irritating.
Gamechangers are few and far apart. I think that digital was one.
Camera phones might have been the second.
-bob
Last edited:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
MikeEvangelist
Member
That should be called the Dean Martin forum. (he was widely known as a menefreghista - roughly translated: 'one who doesn't give a f***'.)