 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / December 2004review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back
For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml The last section, "The Future of Medium Format Digital", was pretty interesting. Bill I guess I'm one of the six. Thanks for posting it. A friend has a Phase One back purchased about four years ago and the prints from it are spectacular. I can only imagine what the P25 must be like. > For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ... > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill > For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ... > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml > > The last section, "The Future of Medium Format Digital", was pretty > interesting. Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Nice images. Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like. Lots of digital images are like that. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like. > > Lots of digital images are like that. Which is why I am not tremendously impressed with digital camera images or the "benefits" of using them. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. Another ostrich. > > For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ... > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it. > > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is > > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. > > Another ostrich. Ok then you cough up the 40K and we all will shoot with it ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Another ostrich. No, just another photographer who isn't independently wealthy. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is >> close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. > > Another ostrich. $40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology but until storage and sensor prices come down, this "size" of digital isn't realistic for most people. I finally broke down and bought an 8MP SLR and feel it should work for stuff I don't want to blow up very big. I'll have to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will. I know it's not going to replace my 4X5! SignatureStacey > $40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology but > until storage and sensor prices come down, this "size" of digital isn't > realistic for most people. I finally broke down and bought an 8MP SLR and > feel it should work for stuff I don't want to blow up very big. Welcome to the dark side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > I'll have > to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will. ??? Is this the same Stacey we all know and love ??? In the real world, 35mm edges out 6MP, but 8MP is very very close. With quality film and scans, though, IMHO, it takes 16.7MP for digital to get into the 645 ballpark. Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645. The digital is crudely sharpened, but you get the idea: rather similar level of detail rendered with the Tech Pan coming out somewhat ahead. The digital needs to be upsampled by a factor of 1.85 or so to match the magnification of a 4000 dpi scan of 645, and is getting rather soft at that scale. (This is a 22mm lens on a dSLR with the same pixel pitch as the 1Dsmk2 vs. a 35mm lens on 645.) http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> $40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology > but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Welcome to the dark side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level. I've watched for years as people said "This new digicam is almost as good as 35mm", I think they are really there now. Should have my old OM 35mm stuff on ebay this spring. Xmas seems like a bad time to post it but maybe people will have Xmas $$ to spend after xmas? >> I'll have >> to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will. > > ??? Is this the same Stacey we all know and love ??? :-) I did say I doubt it will.. > In the real world, 35mm edges out 6MP, but 8MP is very very close. With > quality film and scans, though, IMHO, it takes 16.7MP for digital to get > into the 645 ballpark. > > Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645. But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films so maybe it's not too far off? BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc? SignatureStacey > Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level. I've > watched for years as people said "This new digicam is almost as good as > 35mm", I think they are really there now. That's certainly what the few 8MP vs. 4000 dpi Provia 100F scan comparisons I've seen show. And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less than 35mm. > > Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645. > > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films so maybe it's not > too far off? I really should redo that with Reala, now that Tech Pan's been discontinued. > BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc? Hmm. I've mostly picked up what I know lurking (or arguing<g>) in the various forums and mailing lists. People say good things about "Adobe Photoshop for Photographers" and "Real World Photoshop". I keep trying to read them, but they're too dense of introductory stuff... "Real World Color Management" and "Mastering Digital Printing" are also in my "too be read" pile. (All four of these arrived here due to being recommended often enough in the various mailing lists.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less > than 35mm. Do lens quality and print size not enter into this at all? In other words, the "sensible pages" all say that a 6mp camera is simply inherently inferior to 35mm using any lens at any print size - e.g. I can put a Nikon pro lens on my Nikon D100 camera and make an 8x10 print but the results will always be worse than the same print from a 35mm point and shoot camera with an 8x zoom lens? How about 35mm in a disposable camera compared to the D100 and Nikon pro lens? The image from the disposable camera will always be better? At any print size? I quit using 35mm years ago because the largest satisfactory (to me) print I could usually make with it was 6x9 so I can't make a side by side comparison. But I've been using a 6mp Nikon D100 with a Nikon 60mm macro lens for photographs around the house and my wife used it on a recent trip. I've made some 8x10 prints from the images, they look very nice, subjectively to me they look at least as good, actually better in many cases, than I remember my 8x10 prints looking from my 35mm system (Nikon F4 camera, Nikon pro lenses). > > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films . . . . Tech Pan is (was) a negative film. > > Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level. > I've [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan >Do lens quality and print size not enter into this at all? In other words, >the "sensible pages" all say that a 6mp camera is simply inherently inferior [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Nikon pro lens? The image from the disposable camera will always be better? >At any print size? these comparisons are usually based on decently scanned slow slide films, typically Provia 100F and Velvia, in its various different guises. The decent negative films, such as Reala, are a slightly different proposition, and you'll rpobably not get the slight edge over a 6MP DSLR that you can with slow revresal. If you start using consumer print film, the DSLR almost certainly edges out in front. If you use the sort of print film they put in disposables, typically 400 or 800 ISO stuff, the DSLR will be so much better it's not funny. > And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less > > than 35mm. > > Do lens quality and print size not enter into this at all? Of course. When the discussion is a comparison to digital, "35mm" means "the best ISO 100 films, decent prime lenses at f/8, solid tripod, quality printing." That 35mm users are mostly blind slobs who shoot pushed Tri-X is a different issue. > In other words, > the "sensible pages" all say that a 6mp camera is simply inherently inferior [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nikon pro lens? The image from the disposable camera will always be better? > At any print size? You could read the pages<g>. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html > I quit using 35mm years ago because the largest satisfactory (to me) print I > could usually make with it was 6x9 so I can't make a side by side > comparison. Really. I started out in MF, and have made many forays into 35mm, only to run away aghast at the horrendous lack of quality. > But I've been using a 6mp Nikon D100 with a Nikon 60mm macro > lens for photographs around the house and my wife used it on a recent trip. > I've made some 8x10 prints from the images, they look very nice, > subjectively to me they look at least as good, actually better in many > cases, than I remember my 8x10 prints looking from my 35mm system (Nikon F4 > camera, Nikon pro lenses). Look, I hate 35mm as much as anyone here<g>, but I try not to be too silly: a quality prime lens at f/8 and Provia 100F, and the 35mm types can make a decent A4 print. I suspect that it's easier to get very close to the best from dSLRs than it is from 35mm, so in practice, what you described is quite true for most people. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >Of course. When the discussion is a comparison to digital, "35mm" means "the >best ISO 100 films, decent prime lenses at f/8, solid tripod, quality >printing." > >That 35mm users are mostly blind slobs who shoot pushed Tri-X is a different >issue. Don't pull your punches, David, tell us what you *really* think. ;- >I quit using 35mm years ago because the largest satisfactory (to me) print I >could usually make with it was 6x9 so I can't make a side by side [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cases, than I remember my 8x10 prints looking from my 35mm system (Nikon F4 >camera, Nikon pro lenses). Similar experience here. For my 10D, the knee of the curve is around 12x18". Above this print size, I think a good 35 mm film scan still has more potential. At 8x10" the digicam image often looks better. Some digicam pix enlarge better than others. On a recent trip to England I took a Nikon FE and a dozen rolls of Reala. No regrets, other than the many evenings spent film-scanning. Usually the 10D wins simply on convenience, but trips to England are somewhat rare. I have no experience with digital capture above 6 Mpixels. When I'm lusting after huge images, there's nothing like scanned MF or 4x5" rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >> > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films . . . . > > Tech Pan is (was) a negative film. I meant color neg or "normal" B&W, not tech pan. I never was able to get useable landscape negatives with that stuff. SignatureStacey >> Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level. >I've [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I really should redo that with Reala, now that Tech Pan's been discontinued. Hehe. Reala and NeatImage make a good pair. I sure wish there was an ISO 50 or ISO 25 equivalent... >> BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >my "too be read" pile. (All four of these arrived here due to being >recommended often enough in the various mailing lists.) Different books for different learning styles. I've always enjoyed the books by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler (Photoshop 7 Artistry) etc. (substitute latest version number in title.) Also Martin Evening - "Photoshop 7 for Photographers." (Ditto with the name change.) Dan Margulis is a must-read but quite dense. ("Professional Photoshop".) Take it slow, skim where necessary. You'll have a new respect for the curves tool after plowing through this one. Or maybe go for the slightly lighter alternative, by Michael Kieran, called "Photoshop Color Correction." "Photoshop Channel Chops" -- best book there is about layers and channels, bar none, even though it's old and out of print. RWCM is a classic, just picked it up recently. Also Harald Johnson's book -- the best there is about printers, papers, and inks -- just getting the image onto paper. (He covers all kinds of printers, not just inkjets.) Rest assured... learning Photoshop is a life- long commitment. Hehe. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com PS: Is it time to let Stacey out of the kill file? Hope springs eternal. >>> Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is >>> close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I > know it's not going to replace my 4X5! > Which Digital did you buy Stacey ? Olympus E300 SignatureStacey >> Which Digital did you buy Stacey ? > Olympus E300 We have four Olympus 8080s at work for the staff, and while it is an okay unit, I cannot for a moment recommend these digital cameras over even 35mm when one needs real control. I hate the autofocus (manual override sucks), not having DOF controls typical of 35mm film, and I'm not about to buy a big-$ DSLR until users get a clue regarding the language/controls of lens and shutter control. If I didn't make a living by it, I'd resent the whines such as "Why do you want the background out of focus. It takes so long in Photoshop", and of course, it's still not the same as the real thing. Back to MF. > and I'm not about to buy a > big-$ DSLR until users get a clue regarding the language/controls of lens > and shutter control. So far I like the interface this camera has. For most of what I shoot, having more DOF is a good thing! > If I didn't make a living by it, I'd resent the > whines such as "Why do you want the background out of focus. I'm not going to sell my medium format either. This type of camera isn't going to produce the type shots a 6X6 shot with a 180mm F2.8 sonar wide open would do.. SignatureStacey <<<Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.>>> how do you figure? After working with the Imacon 132C I don't think you could match the results with a 4x5 sheet of Provia, much less smaller formats. Jon > how do you figure? After working with the Imacon 132C I don't think you could > match the results with a 4x5 sheet of Provia, much less smaller formats. You could blow away the results with a 4x5 sheet of Provia, and with smaller formats as well. But it's your choice. If you're happy with digital, stay with it. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. > > When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it. $15,000 for the Sinar 54M $9700 for a 'blad V96C. >> Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is >> close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film. >> >> When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it. > > $15,000 for the Sinar 54M That's "only" 16MP, right? The 54M is 22MP > $9700 for a 'blad V96C. > >>> When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it. >> >> $15,000 for the Sinar 54M But it's less than $10,000, so it's closer to "the real world" prices. Also, the V96C may "only be" 16MP, but how many other 16MP backs that go for less than $10k will you be able to use Zeiss lenses? Also, look at how many people are going ga-ga over the new Canon 1DS. How many MP does that camera have? 16.7. Also, it costs $8000. So for $1800 more than the Canon you'd be able to use Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad accessories. In fact, you can even use a 905SWC, an Arcbody or a Flexbody if you have one handy. You also receive the handy, dandy Image Bank that will hold 1550 images. What a deal. > That's "only" 16MP, right? The 54M is 22MP > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> $15,000 for the Sinar 54M |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.