[pingflood]

Dear friend, many years ago, 135 format was for amateurs , all of us had used 35 mm SLR and landscapes from 35 mm film was for home use.

Serious landscapes were, are and will = MIDDLE and LARGE format.

If you could make a 20x30 print from color film that was anywhere NEAR as good as that from a current FF DSLR, more people would probably have used the "amateur" format. Take a look at what you can get out of an A850/900 body -- look at the PRINTS, and then see if you still think medium format is needed for "serious" work.

[falconeye]

please read Emil Martinec : Dynamic range and DxO - Luminous Landscape Forum

This quote keeps getting posted, so let me make a comment:

What ejmartin writes is not incorrect and it is a nice tutorial to relate DR to the full SNR curve.

However, he misses the point as many others do. There is no such "photographer's criterion" as pixel SNR>16. Simply because a pixel means nothing to a photographer.

DxO's criterion of SNR>1 at 8MP is arbitrary as well but at least, it is well defined. I don't like it either but all other definitions I know of are ill-defined.

[Torphoto]

If you could make a 20x30 print from color film that was anywhere NEAR as good as that from a current FF DSLR, more people would probably have used the "amateur" format. Take a look at what you can get out of an A850/900 body -- look at the PRINTS, and then see if you still think medium format is needed for "serious" work.

well my mkII is close enough to the a900/850 and I still want more, if that 645d was #4500 I'd be so all over it now!

trust me, bigger is always better and always will be, also 20x30" prints, dude I want to print posters and billboards that you can walk up to and they look real!

[deejjjaaaa]

This quote keeps getting posted, so let me make a comment:

What ejmartin writes is not incorrect and it is a nice tutorial to relate DR to the full SNR curve.

However, he misses the point as many others do. There is no such "photographer's criterion" as pixel SNR>16. Simply because a pixel means nothing to a photographer.

DxO's criterion of SNR>1 at 8MP is arbitrary as well but at least, it is well defined. I don't like it either but all other definitions I know of are ill-defined.

may be you can comment in that topic - that will be a useful addition

[Pentaxor]

Thanks.

So if I'm reading this right, when down sampling the 40Mpix picture to approximately 8Mpix it will beat the K-x with 0.2 EV in DR (IF you stay at base iso, otherwise it will not beat it). But if you stay at the original "screen"-resolution (after all, the high resolution is what this camera is all about) you will not beat the K-x. You will still have the high resolution, but the DR is nothing special, is that correctly understood?

I believe this is a misconception. it doesn't need to be downsampled (pixel resolution) just to increase the DR exposure value. the MF's DR would remain constant at whatever pixel resolution (lowest to 40MP) and still be high at varying ISO frequencies. actually, if it is downsampled to the highest pixel resolution of an APS-C camera (12-18MP), the MF would still clearly be better. 40MP resolution on the MF is used inorder to take full advantage of the capability of the camera. it doesn't make sense if the camera is constraint at 20MP, while it can do much more better than that. or simply saying that at High Resolution is where the MF really shines. the territory where present APS-C cameras hasn't or cannot reach. the future FF maybe able to do slightly of that, but not the current ones. but still, that's a lot of work or demand from an FF sensor camera. and MF is surely looking to become the next generation of cameras. just judging from the price, it surely has taken a path to affordability. who knows, in 2-3 years, we'll see an MF that costs at around 3k to 5k on average.

[redrockcoulee]

If you could make a 20x30 print from color film that was anywhere NEAR as good as that from a current FF DSLR, more people would probably have used the "amateur" format. Take a look at what you can get out of an A850/900 body -- look at the PRINTS, and then see if you still think medium format is needed for "serious" work.

Are the A850/900 images far superior to a D3? If not then the D3 in large prints pales compared to scanned medium format film fluid scanned with a Nikon 8000/9000 scanner. But our final product were 60 by 80 inch prints but it did not take proofs that big to see a difference. Even the ads for the D3X claimed to be "approaching" medium format quality. Nikon does NOT claim that it is as good as the larger format digital cameras. Drum scanned would be even better (but would have needed to pay to have them done).

It really depends on subject matter and requirments of the final product and not numbers and specs. Some think that the 24 by 36 mm sensor size is the ultimate and smaller is not as good and larger is a waste of money. Not saying that was what you were meaning but it seems to be that if there are benefits in larger sensor size In film there are people who will not work in 4X5 or 5X7 as they think those fomats are too small to acheive the quality they want. I am sure there are photographers using digital that would not agree with your statement as their standards are extremely high. There are reasons that photographers spend the money upgrading from a 40 to 65 Meg back and these are often the same people who are using top of the line Nikon or Canon for work that requires a smaller or faster camera. We who do not have such demanding clients may scoff at them but these photographers are making their living and reputation on being amongst the top. They see differences I wonder why we cannot image them?

[rparmar]

People need what they need to get their job done. I can print out great 4x6" photos from an image no more than 800 pixels a side. I manage lovely A3 posters from my K20D files and could likely go higher but have little demand. There's them that do billboards without too excessive a pixel count, because the LPI can be very low on a print designed to be viewed from a great distance.

Likely the most demanding application are art prints that must be printed at a decent size and also viewed from rather close by gallery patrons inspecting the work. If you are trying to capture a landscape at f/22 with ultimate detail... well, medium format is certainly not wasted on that application.

[falconeye]

If you are trying to capture a landscape at f/22 with ultimate detail... well, medium format is certainly not wasted on that application.

This is true. Cityscapes and Landscapes.

But to be fair, those on a tight budget can resort to stitching to achieve the same quality. Due to a lack of ultra wide lenses for 33x44mm, one would have to do this anyway.


In this context, I have a question:

Why is it that so many MF photographers rely on stitching using a shift lens?
When IMHO, stitching with a nodal-turning camera (and modern software) yields even better results?

[24X36NOW]

he heh...I forgot about stitching...see that, there's really no need for digital MF other than studio work - all you need is one of THESE contraptions...

Really Right Stuff - Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Pkg - LONG - Kit Configuration Page

...and you can make as big a landscape/cityscape picture as you want! Since the 645D is pimped as a medium format "field" camera, it's already obsolete!

And all this for LESS than the price of a K7!

[rparmar]

Why is it that so many MF photographers rely on stitching using a shift lens?

Do they? I know I've seen some panos done like this but I am sure a lot don't stitch. There are still a good number of photographers who like to get stuff right in camera. And there are still markets that require this.

[Pentaxor]

he heh...I forgot about stitching...see that, there's really no need for digital MF other than studio work - all you need is one of THESE contraptions...

Really Right Stuff - Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Pkg - LONG - Kit Configuration Page

...and you can make as big a landscape/cityscape picture as you want! Since the 645D is pimped as a medium format "field" camera, it's already obsolete!

And all this for LESS than the price of a K7!

your logic somehow follows that of why people should not buy premium lenses because they are obsolete. and that kit lenses or average lenses are enough since post-processing software can do what a premium lens can.

not to mention that upgrading from a current APS-C or FF to a future APS-C and FF is unnecessary since software can do it as well. we can say that future APS-C and FF dslrs are obsolete as well.

of course this is a cheap alternative that would cost you just below $100 bucks. but whether you like it or not, there will be people that will look for something in a camera that other cameras don't have, and not look for a cheap alternative.

same logic as to why people prefer such camera system. it is not a discussion of obsoleteness but practical use for a certain user. point is, a person chose to ride a motorbike, not a modern bicycle, does not imply primitiveness.

[rparmar]

Why is it that so many MF photographers rely on stitching using a shift lens?

OK, I just figured out that you are talking about architectural photographers not landscape photographers. Now my brain is screwed on correctly I can answer your question.

1. They use a tilt lens because in-camera correction of perspective "distortion" is a must.

2. They stitch because the available tilt-shift lenses are not wide enough, for interiors especially. Until recently most used 24mm. Now there is the Canon 17mm but it has a front element that is difficult to believe!

(This evening went to an exhibit of architectural photography as a matter of fact. Though I don't do any myself, I do enjoy it.)

[falconeye]

OK, I just figured out that you are talking about architectural photographers not landscape photographers.

Yeah, hidden in the word cityscapes

Thanks for the answer. Sounds logical to me. But is it really required to use a tilt lens for architectural shots? I.e., is the depth of field really too narrow for an entire building?

I ask because if it is for perspective correction only, nodal point stitching will correct it perfectly.

I imagine that shift lens stitching was possible in the dark room which is why it is still popular.

[kenyee]

Do they? I know I've seen some panos done like this but I am sure a lot don't stitch. There are still a good number of photographers who like to get stuff right in camera. And there are still markets that require this.

There was an article in the latest Outdoor Photographer about a guy who replaced his big View camera w/ a D3x and a tilt/shift lens.
Apparently, a full exposure w/ the View camera takes 10seconds.
If he does multiple shots w/ the D3x and a TS lens, it takes 6 seconds to take all the shots. Then he stitches and crops to get a final result that he thinks is as good as the result.
I didn't realize view cameras take that long to do exposures but they do supposedly need craploads of studio lighting power for studio shots...

[pingflood]

10 seconds sounds a little high, but remember view cameras often shoot way down at f/64, and with slow film that can yield some pretty slow shutter speeds.