Dreadhead Posted March 30, 2009 Report Posted March 30, 2009 lens geometry can't be fixed in photoshop. No it can't be exactly fixed but you can get very very close. What exactly is better (lens geometry wise) about attempting to get the lens to throw light on a larger flat surface than before? I would have to say nothing. You just end up with bigger glass which I guess is more tolerant of imperfection but with manufacturing being what it is today I don't think that is as much an issue. My understanding is that the pro level 135 glass is sharper than the MF glass (because it has to be). MF/LF used to have a huge advantage in that the resolution was noticeably higher because you were able to have the same image on a bigger piece of film. This camera is 30mp which is not that much considering what the top of the line Canons and Nikons do in a lot less real estate. A number of pro's have switched from MF back to simple FF and I see the trend increasing (though I'm probably wrong).
Knuckledragger Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Posted March 30, 2009 Who needs eyeballs, I have measurments! One immediate advantage of a 30MP 645 sensor vs a 20something MP 35mm "full frame" sensor is pixel pitch. The individual sensors on the sensor will be larger, and much more resistant to producing chromatic noise. 35mm DSLRs get around this by applying in-camera noise reduction. Recently, Nikon has become rather good at this (at least on the D3 and D700). That said, it's better still not have to apply noise reduction at all. The above diagram gives a relative idea of the sensor size of different formats. The 645 sensor is both bigger and more rectangular than the Kodak. EDIT: This chart, from those nuts at RED:
Dreadhead Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 Who needs eyeballs, I have measurments! Where are the measurements? The size of the sensor proves something? after that lead in I was hoping for something about lp/mm on which you might likely have a point if printing large prints. I wonder at your statements about noise when a Hassy can only go up to iso 800 in it's 31mp form..... Even less at others. NR is virtually non-existent for most of the latest crop of DSLR at those isos. A lot of the noise that happens at HIGHER (MF unavailable) isos is to do with the fact that you have to put a higher voltage across the sensor to get higher sensitivity and the leakage between pixels increases with smaller pixel spacings. Hence better high iso performance for the d3/d700 etc because they have relatively large pixels.
Old Pa Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 The view from my office window; 31st of March, 35F with light rain as a late winter storm barrels off the plains at us, Chopin nocturnes on the big rig, the giant bare oak outside my office window captures the mood fully.
grawk Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 The advantage, to my understanding, of medium and large format is that for a given field of vision (or effective focal length), you get more realistic and dramatic depth of field. And, as with the difference between pocket cameras and SLRs, the larger the sensor and the larger the glass for the equivalent FOV, you get a cleaner image with higher contrast, lower noise, and better overall image clarity.
Dreadhead Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 The advantage, to my understanding, of medium and large format is that for a given field of vision (or effective focal length), you get more realistic and dramatic depth of field. And, as with the difference between pocket cameras and SLRs, the larger the sensor and the larger the glass for the equivalent FOV, you get a cleaner image with higher contrast, lower noise, and better overall image clarity. Larger formats have lower DOF for the same field of view. Which is worse for me anyway. I have a hell of a time getting enough DOF most of the time when I have to shoot wide open to get a bird in the shot. Your opinion may vary. The other things are just a function of sensor size and as I said if you're at the 800 iso that the MF cameras seem to top out at the contrast, noise and image clarity from most modern DSLRS is plain excellent. I mean look at these iso 6400 shots: Nikon D3X, Nikon D3 and Canon 5D Mark II ISO 6,400 Comparison
grawk Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 large and medium format cameras are definitely not for birding. APS-C is the format that will suit birding best, imho. LF and MF cameras are best used in studio settings, or for other shots where long exposure times are acceptable.
Hopstretch Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 I am basically strictly a point-and-shoot happy snapper, but I did quite like this recent picture of my wife and son having a swimming lesson in a South African rock pool.
Knuckledragger Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Posted April 3, 2009 Amherst college athletic fields. View from my lower driveway. Fun with lens flare. Moar here.
mulveling Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 So pretty. I love infrared film. Last 35mm roll I took of it, years ago, had the bottom 5-10% burned in, I assume by an infrared sensor for the camera's auto-winding mechanism
Knuckledragger Posted April 3, 2009 Author Report Posted April 3, 2009 Most modern Canon film SLRs have a sesnor that fogs IR film. I am unsurea bout Nikons. The above pictures were not taken with a film camera, but a specially modified Canon G2 digicam that has had its internal filter swapped. I really like the images, but the camera itself has some problems that the seller did not disclose to me. I am unsure if I'm going to be keeping it.
Dreadhead Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 More proof that you need not spend 30k for image quality: DxOMark Sensor Doesn't make the optical differences go away but the MF stuff generally gets beat down by the newest DSLRs
Dreadhead Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 Most modern Canon film SLRs have a sesnor that fogs IR film. I am unsurea bout Nikons. The above pictures were not taken with a film camera, but a specially modified Canon G2 digicam that has had its internal filter swapped. I really like the images, but the camera itself has some problems that the seller did not disclose to me. I am unsure if I'm going to be keeping it. Sorry to hear that. Those pics are lovely.
grawk Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 More proof that you need not spend 30k for image quality: DxOMark Sensor Doesn't make the optical differences go away but the MF stuff generally gets beat down by the newest DSLRs from that link, about the hasselblad Professional portrait and landscape photographers often use medium-format cameras because of their superb performance under controlled lighting conditions. However, as these cameras are definitely not designed for so-called
Dreadhead Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 In other words, it's not just about the sensor. Obviously medium format sensors aren't going to be as good as smaller sensors, for the same reason you get higher megapixel density on point and shoot than you do with SLRs. The bigger the sensor, the more likely flaws become. The other advantages are why people use MF and LF cameras. I read that before I posted the link but if you look at the individual test scores excluding the iso score the there is still a beat down taking place. Especially when one talks about the value. That said your argument about larger sensors having problems is false. They make the sensors as part of a larger wafer if that was true then it would hold true for smaller sensors near the edge etc. They just get fewer sensors per wafer which of course drives up cost. Also larger pixel size is an advantage generally for ISO and the pixels in MF are huge so that again sounds like an excuse. Optically when you want small depth of field or are expanding it out to insanely large sizes MF has a physical advantage (but I'm not sure about the expanding part because resolution is likely sensor limited in this case) but otherwise it's just cache. I've seen fashion photographers taking shots on a well lit beach with massive flashes because their Hassy doesn't have good iso and they are stopped down for depth of field so I fail to see the advantage for that use. The color and contrast are no better (I had thought they were but that test shows they aren't).
grawk Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 So what you're saying is you're not in the market for a medium or large format camera
Dreadhead Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 So what you're saying is you're not in the market for a medium or large format camera In short yes I drooled and drooled for a long time but the more I looked the more they made no sense for me. Now I think they almost make no sense for anyone that's not producing prints over 40 inches and requires that at that size you can see the pores on the subject. Don't get me wrong they are still cool stuff. Also I want to blow over 6k on a DAC (possibly incl ADC) so maybe I'm not in a real position to judge value
grawk Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 It's too bad indra's not around to explain what she likes about MF over SLR...maybe I'll send her this link.
gauche Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 It's too bad indra's not around to explain what she likes about MF over SLR...maybe I'll send her this link. Indra's busy setting up her show. I wish her the best.
n_maher Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 It's too bad indra's not around to explain what she likes about MF over SLR...maybe I'll send her this link. Probably because she shoots very little "action"?
Contrastique Posted April 3, 2009 Report Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) Thank you Dan for the link! Thank you Terry, as that is indeed what I'm doing besides finishing my graduating year. In short, I don't have any experience with MF on digital. I have never worked with MF digital and the way it looks now I never will. A sensor alone says nothing really. It's the processor that makes it work (or not). In general lines one could say that bigger sensors in DSLRs work better than their smaller brothers because they are trying to throw sooo many megapixels into one small bit that when looking at the signal-noise ratio FF beats APS-C hands down. When looking at MF digital I don't know how much the former statement counts...they are designed for a different purpose: studio photography mostly where the lighting is controlled and you (most of the time) don't really have to mess around with difficult lighting situations. That's really all I can say about it and already had been said here. I do work on MF now and even on LF since a few days (8x10" and it's brutally sexy!) but all film. And MF and LF on film can't be beat by anything, resolution-wise speaking though it's slower than digital but then again, I don't need the speed I use the bigger size because the small DOF is just brilliant, it's beautiful working with such equipment, it's a slow process which gives it even more beauty to me and photography becomes different in a way. You think a lot different now before taking a shot. Each shot becomes a stand-alone moment, more than before. Shooting 35mm film with an automatic F100 even when used on aperture-preference becomes boring and too fast for me to fully enjoy it. Anyway, I hope it mattered but I guess it's all been said. Edited April 3, 2009 by Contrastique
Dusty Chalk Posted April 6, 2009 Report Posted April 6, 2009 Have you tried taking infrared pics of any gear yet?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now