645DII - 50 MP with crop 1.1. - is it good upgrade?

ogl · 09-06-2012, 05:48 AM

New 645DII:

Trusense (formally Kodak) sensor KAF-50100 51.6MP CCD sensor in 49.1 x 36.8mm (active pixels 50.1M),
KAF-50100 - TRUESENSE 6.0-micron Full Frame CCD Platform - Technologies - Products - Full Frame CCD

645 film equivalent crop factor 1.1X (old 645D sensor was in 1.3X), improved image processing, SAFOX X (21 AF points, 9 crossed, 12 linear),
increased 60,000 shutter actuations/life (rated), 16-bit RAW.

LamyTax · 09-06-2012, 05:49 AM

No, that's a terrible upgrade

ogl · 09-06-2012, 05:50 AM

Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera?

Caat · 09-06-2012, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera?

Well the problem that MF cameras have is that they haven't had the same level of R&D invested in their sensors so I would expect the Canon sensor to perform better in terms of noise. 16 bit RAW is potentially the part which will help the MF sensor stand out.

At the moment I'm not sure the situation is disastrous, but I think the next generation of MF sensors are going to have to improve in order to remain competitive with high resolution 35mm sensors

LamyTax · 09-06-2012, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera?

Truesense sensors are much better than anything Canon ever had to offer, and I doubt that'll change.
MF is an entirely different thing anyway. Compare PhaseOne on DXOmark with the D800E.

I don't know how Canon/Nikon can afford not to have it, if they don't release MF by this Photokina, they'll die (yes, that was sarcasm).

rawr · 09-06-2012, 06:02 AM

It would be a great upgrade if it shipped for USD $5000.

normhead · 09-06-2012, 06:07 AM - **4 Likes**

Funny how this works.... when you're talking FF versus APS-c a 12 Mb FF is better than 16 Mb APS-c, but when you're talking MF , a 46 Mp Canon FF is preferable to a 50 Mp MF, all based on conjecture of what might be. FF probably gets more development than MF because they outsell them maybe 50-1, but APS-c doesn't get more development than FF because it outsells them 10-1. The inconsistencies in logic just abound. It really gets old. Especially when it's all conjecture.

ogl · 09-06-2012, 06:21 AM

D800E is very close to 645D's IQ. I've converted photos myself with the equal objects - 645D is better, but just a bit.

normhead · 09-06-2012, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by ogl

D800E is very close to 645D's IQ. I've converted photos myself with the equal objects - 645D is better, but just a bit.

That's what you pay the Big bucks for...
And FF is just a bit better than APS-c.

Clavius · 09-06-2012, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Funny how this works.... when you're talking FF versus APS-c a 12 Mb FF is better than 16 Mb APS-c, but when you're talking MF , a 46 Mp Canon FF is preferable to a 50 Mp MF, all based on conjecture of what might be. FF probably gets more development than MF because they outsell them maybe 50-1, but APS-c doesn't get more development than FF because it outsells them 10-1. The inconsistencies in logic just abound. It really gets old. Especially when it's all conjecture.

I was thinking the same thing in the discussions about how the D800 was "better then" or "just as good as" the 645D. Somewhere I even read that the IQ of the D800 is higher, because there are more pixels on a smaller sensor surface, so it outresolves the 645D. But I thought, according to the APSC vs 35mm -discussions, that less/bigger pixels on a bigger surface = better IQ. (Besides that, comparing FF 35mm with a crop MF also seems very... meh.)

I had just assumed that I didn't follow the logic because of my inexperience with those formats.

**Rondec** · 09-06-2012, 06:39 AM

It is really hard to know. I certainly can't afford such a camera. At the same time, it is not just about megapixels, but about dynamic range, colors, etc. I do think at low iso, resolution should probably be significantly better than best full frame sensors.

Still, this sensor is significantly newer than the one in the 645D currently. It would be surprising if there haven't been some improvements in these factors.

Caat · 09-06-2012, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

I was thinking the same thing in the discussions about how the D800 was "better then" or "just as good as" the 645D. Somewhere I even read that the IQ of the D800 is higher, because there are more pixels on a smaller sensor surface, so it outresolves the 645D. But I thought, according to the APSC vs 35mm -discussions, that less/bigger pixels on a bigger surface = better IQ.

I had just assumed that I didn't follow the logic because of my inexperience with those formats.

I agree to an extent

But the other part of the problem - and part that the 645D tries to address - is that MF cameras have traditionally been a bit archaic in their general performance. If the 645DII does get SAFOX X (assume that SAFOX X itself is indeed real) then it will be the most sophisticated AF in a MF camera by far. The high end 35mm FFs out-compete the MF cameras in key areas of usability such as general responsiveness and AF sophistication. For some users these advantages may be enough to tip the balance in favour of 35mm even if their IQ isn't quite a match.

gazonk · 09-06-2012, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera?

Hey, if it's only about the MP, why are people crying about FF all the time? This will be almost as large compared to FF as FF is compared to APS-C (1.43 crop vs. 1.5 crop).

This would turn the 55mm lens into a 39mm-equivalent light wide angle lens (with the current 645D it's a 43mm-equivalent "perfect normal") - and the old 75mm film-era normal lens will suddenly be quite close to a normal lens (at 53mm equivalent).

Winder · 09-06-2012, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by ogl

New 645DII:

Trusense (formally Kodak) sensor KAF-50100 51.6MP CCD sensor in 49.1 x 36.8mm (active pixels 50.1M),
KAF-50100 - TRUESENSE 6.0-micron Full Frame CCD Platform - Technologies - Products - Full Frame CCD

645 film equivalent crop factor 1.1X (old 645D sensor was in 1.3X), improved image processing, SAFOX X (21 AF points, 9 crossed, 12 linear),
increased 60,000 shutter actuations/life (rated), 16-bit RAW.

Full Frame is at 40MP with CMOS sensors that can shoot HD video. Canon was rumored to be testing a 47MP at the Olympics. If Pentax goes with a CCD sensor in the 645D it had better be one amazing CCD when it comes to low noise and DR.

If Pentax wants to excite some people then a Sony CMOS sensor in the 645D could definitely do that. Maybe the new CCD is much better and can compete across the ISO range with the Sony CMOS.

Clavius · 09-06-2012, 06:53 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Caat

I agree to an extent

But the other part of the problem - and part that the 645D tries to address - is that MF cameras have traditionally been a bit archaic in their general performance. If the 645DII does get SAFOX X (assume that SAFOX X itself is indeed real) then it will be the most sophisticated AF in a MF camera by far. The high end 35mm FFs out-compete the MF cameras in key areas of usability such as general responsiveness and AF sophistication. For some users these advantages may be enough to tip the balance in favour of 35mm even if their IQ isn't quite a match.

Well, I will never spend THAT amound of money on any camera like the 645D. But I do shoot film 645. And don't have the foggiest clue why I would ever want AF for medium format type of shooting.

But I understand that cameras that cost THAT much, have to have everything onboard. Even if you know that it will be stuck in the OFF postion forever.

09-06-2012, 05:48 AM	#1
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	645DII - 50 MP with crop 1.1. - is it good upgrade? New 645DII: Trusense (formally Kodak) sensor KAF-50100 51.6MP CCD sensor in 49.1 x 36.8mm (active pixels 50.1M), KAF-50100 - TRUESENSE 6.0-micron Full Frame CCD Platform - Technologies - Products - Full Frame CCD 645 film equivalent crop factor 1.1X (old 645D sensor was in 1.3X), improved image processing, SAFOX X (21 AF points, 9 crossed, 12 linear), increased 60,000 shutter actuations/life (rated), 16-bit RAW.

09-06-2012, 06:23 AM	#9
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ogl D800E is very close to 645D's IQ. I've converted photos myself with the equal objects - 645D is better, but just a bit. That's what you pay the Big bucks for... And FF is just a bit better than APS-c. Last edited by normhead; 09-06-2012 at 07:01 AM.

09-06-2012, 06:32 AM	#10
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by normhead Funny how this works.... when you're talking FF versus APS-c a 12 Mb FF is better than 16 Mb APS-c, but when you're talking MF , a 46 Mp Canon FF is preferable to a 50 Mp MF, all based on conjecture of what might be. FF probably gets more development than MF because they outsell them maybe 50-1, but APS-c doesn't get more development than FF because it outsells them 10-1. The inconsistencies in logic just abound. It really gets old. Especially when it's all conjecture. I was thinking the same thing in the discussions about how the D800 was "better then" or "just as good as" the 645D. Somewhere I even read that the IQ of the D800 is higher, because there are more pixels on a smaller sensor surface, so it outresolves the 645D. But I thought, according to the APSC vs 35mm -discussions, that less/bigger pixels on a bigger surface = better IQ. (Besides that, comparing FF 35mm with a crop MF also seems very... meh.) I had just assumed that I didn't follow the logic because of my inexperience with those formats. Last edited by Clavius; 09-06-2012 at 06:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Is it a good idea to crop top of head when shooting couples?	Inexorable	Photo Critique	34	08-27-2012 01:12 PM
Is this good time to upgrade from k7 to K5	tafzal	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	26	03-25-2012 08:35 PM
A good kit zoom upgrade for the K-5	vapentaxuser	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	10	12-30-2011 10:33 PM
a good upgrade from a 16-45	Tommot1965	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-17-2010 12:20 AM
Ist ds upgrade: k10 still a good value?	mapov	Pentax DSLR Discussion	53	11-20-2008 11:22 PM

09-06-2012, 05:49 AM	#2
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	No, that's a terrible upgrade

09-06-2012, 05:50 AM	#3
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera?

09-06-2012, 05:57 AM	#4
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by ogl Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera? Well the problem that MF cameras have is that they haven't had the same level of R&D invested in their sensors so I would expect the Canon sensor to perform better in terms of noise. 16 bit RAW is potentially the part which will help the MF sensor stand out. At the moment I'm not sure the situation is disastrous, but I think the next generation of MF sensors are going to have to improve in order to remain competitive with high resolution 35mm sensors

09-06-2012, 06:01 AM	#5
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by ogl Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera? Truesense sensors are much better than anything Canon ever had to offer, and I doubt that'll change. MF is an entirely different thing anyway. Compare PhaseOne on DXOmark with the D800E. I don't know how Canon/Nikon can afford not to have it, if they don't release MF by this Photokina, they'll die (yes, that was sarcasm).

09-06-2012, 06:02 AM	#6
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	It would be a great upgrade if it shipped for USD $5000.

09-06-2012, 06:07 AM - 4 Likes	#7
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Funny how this works.... when you're talking FF versus APS-c a 12 Mb FF is better than 16 Mb APS-c, but when you're talking MF , a 46 Mp Canon FF is preferable to a 50 Mp MF, all based on conjecture of what might be. FF probably gets more development than MF because they outsell them maybe 50-1, but APS-c doesn't get more development than FF because it outsells them 10-1. The inconsistencies in logic just abound. It really gets old. Especially when it's all conjecture.

09-06-2012, 06:21 AM	#8
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	D800E is very close to 645D's IQ. I've converted photos myself with the equal objects - 645D is better, but just a bit.

09-06-2012, 06:39 AM	#11
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	It is really hard to know. I certainly can't afford such a camera. At the same time, it is not just about megapixels, but about dynamic range, colors, etc. I do think at low iso, resolution should probably be significantly better than best full frame sensors. Still, this sensor is significantly newer than the one in the 645D currently. It would be surprising if there haven't been some improvements in these factors.

09-06-2012, 06:44 AM	#12
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Clavius I was thinking the same thing in the discussions about how the D800 was "better then" or "just as good as" the 645D. Somewhere I even read that the IQ of the D800 is higher, because there are more pixels on a smaller sensor surface, so it outresolves the 645D. But I thought, according to the APSC vs 35mm -discussions, that less/bigger pixels on a bigger surface = better IQ. I had just assumed that I didn't follow the logic because of my inexperience with those formats. I agree to an extent But the other part of the problem - and part that the 645D tries to address - is that MF cameras have traditionally been a bit archaic in their general performance. If the 645DII does get SAFOX X (assume that SAFOX X itself is indeed real) then it will be the most sophisticated AF in a MF camera by far. The high end 35mm FFs out-compete the MF cameras in key areas of usability such as general responsiveness and AF sophistication. For some users these advantages may be enough to tip the balance in favour of 35mm even if their IQ isn't quite a match.

09-06-2012, 06:49 AM	#13
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl Canon will show 46 MP FF camera if this rumor is truth. 10 extra MP - is it sufficiently for MF camera? Hey, if it's only about the MP, why are people crying about FF all the time? This will be almost as large compared to FF as FF is compared to APS-C (1.43 crop vs. 1.5 crop). This would turn the 55mm lens into a 39mm-equivalent light wide angle lens (with the current 645D it's a 43mm-equivalent "perfect normal") - and the old 75mm film-era normal lens will suddenly be quite close to a normal lens (at 53mm equivalent).

09-06-2012, 06:53 AM	#14
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by ogl New 645DII: Trusense (formally Kodak) sensor KAF-50100 51.6MP CCD sensor in 49.1 x 36.8mm (active pixels 50.1M), KAF-50100 - TRUESENSE 6.0-micron Full Frame CCD Platform - Technologies - Products - Full Frame CCD 645 film equivalent crop factor 1.1X (old 645D sensor was in 1.3X), improved image processing, SAFOX X (21 AF points, 9 crossed, 12 linear), increased 60,000 shutter actuations/life (rated), 16-bit RAW. Full Frame is at 40MP with CMOS sensors that can shoot HD video. Canon was rumored to be testing a 47MP at the Olympics. If Pentax goes with a CCD sensor in the 645D it had better be one amazing CCD when it comes to low noise and DR. If Pentax wants to excite some people then a Sony CMOS sensor in the 645D could definitely do that. Maybe the new CCD is much better and can compete across the ISO range with the Sony CMOS.

09-06-2012, 06:53 AM - 2 Likes	#15
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Caat I agree to an extent But the other part of the problem - and part that the 645D tries to address - is that MF cameras have traditionally been a bit archaic in their general performance. If the 645DII does get SAFOX X (assume that SAFOX X itself is indeed real) then it will be the most sophisticated AF in a MF camera by far. The high end 35mm FFs out-compete the MF cameras in key areas of usability such as general responsiveness and AF sophistication. For some users these advantages may be enough to tip the balance in favour of 35mm even if their IQ isn't quite a match. Well, I will never spend THAT amound of money on any camera like the 645D. But I do shoot film 645. And don't have the foggiest clue why I would ever want AF for medium format type of shooting. But I understand that cameras that cost THAT much, have to have everything onboard. Even if you know that it will be stuck in the OFF postion forever.