Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-04-2016, 08:50 PM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 270
Would I "switch" from Pentax digital 645 to an XYZ megapixel Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever 35mm? No, not at all. I switched from 35mm to medium format for many reasons, resolution being only one of them. And it wasn't even the most important reason. I print big myself, and I work at a large format fine art / photographic printing studio. I see virtually every kind of file every month. In my own work and in my clients' work, the medium format files (and larger, in the case of large format film scans) blow everything else away regardless of whatever resolution we're talking about. It's a system effect, not purely a sensor resolution effect.

One of the bigger factors as stated above is light gathering ability. Larger sensors always have an advantage of physics. We're working with light after all. If you can collect more light, the quality of a given exposure will have some advantages that mere pixel density can't trump. I consider the "native size", i.e. non-enlarged print size, of 645Z files to be roughly 20x25 inches. (In my case I crop to 4x5 most of the time.) Enlarging can go up from there with eminently acceptable results. A lot of it is because of the amazing clarity and tonal range of the images. They can be really pushed hard in enlargement, and they don't fall apart.

Might an XYZ megapixel Sony, Canon or Nikon be useful as a second system for different purposes? Sure. But by preference I will always shoot the biggest system I have, when it will in any way fit the shooting situation at hand. Especially if the goal is superb large prints.

04-05-2016, 03:52 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 109
No. I like the large solid body with good ergonomics. For landscape photography I find the smaller bodies more susceptible to wind vibration. Plus I LOVE the 4:3 ratio.
04-05-2016, 05:41 AM - 1 Like   #18
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,605
While these are all true points, they are largely irrelevant in this case. The OP specifically mentioned using the two for landscapes, an application where shooting at wide apertures typically is usually seen as undesireable and shooting at very small apertures is the norm in order to catch as wide a DOF as possible.

QuoteOriginally posted by whwang Quote
These can be compensated with a lens that delivers high image quality without stopping down much. The larger usable aperture can feed more photons to the smaller pixels, produce shallower focus depth, and less diffraction. All these require large aperture for it to work. This is what drives the latest bunch of lenses from Zeiss, Canon, Sony, and Sigma. Newer lenses have to deliver high IQ at large apertures to make high pixel count sensors really worthwhile.

So, the real question is which one is easier (both technically easier to make and design, and practically easier for users to afford): make a 35mm full-frame lens very very sharp at F2.8, or a cropped 645 lens very sharp at F4? This is for the comparison of 645z and A7RII (both around 40-50 MP).

If we are comparing the 645 full frame and the rumored A7RIII (in the 80-100 MP range), then the comparison becomes 35mm full-frame lens very very sharp at F2.0 vs. 645 full frame lens very sharp at F4. Which one is easier to make/design/afford? The answer to this question will probably determine which sensor is technically superior.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao
04-05-2016, 08:45 AM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: throughout the US
Posts: 79
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Royce Howland Quote
I print big myself, and I work at a large format fine art / photographic printing studio. I see virtually every kind of file every month. In my own work and in my clients' work, the medium format files (and larger, in the case of large format film scans) blow everything else away regardless of whatever resolution we're talking about. It's a system effect, not purely a sensor resolution effect.
Thanks Royce. Good reminders for why I chose 4x5 film as my main system before I switched to digital. I saw the difference back then in large prints and especially in smooth tonality compared to small film formats.


QuoteOriginally posted by Gyroscope Quote
No. I like the large solid body with good ergonomics. For landscape photography I find the smaller bodies more susceptible to wind vibration. Plus I LOVE the 4:3 ratio.
Gyroscope, I hadn't thought of wind vibration differences. And agree on ergonomics and 4:3 ratio, two important factors.


QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While these are all true points, they are largely irrelevant in this case. The OP specifically mentioned using the two for landscapes, an application where shooting at wide apertures typically is usually seen as undesireable and shooting at very small apertures is the norm in order to catch as wide a DOF as possible.
Exactly, dcshooter 😀

04-05-2016, 10:12 AM - 1 Like   #20
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While these are all true points, they are largely irrelevant in this case. The OP specifically mentioned using the two for landscapes, an application where shooting at wide apertures typically is usually seen as undesireable and shooting at very small apertures is the norm in order to catch as wide a DOF as possible.
That wouldn't change the point. The DOF that one can reach at F11 on 645z may be reached at F8 on a 35mm full frame sensor (roughly speaking) for the same FOV. (You can change this to F16 v F11 if you like.) And the larger aperture of F8 here offers the extra photons to compensate the smaller pixels or the smaller sensor area of the 35mm FF. So again the question is which one delivers a shaper image, a good 645z lens at F11 or a good 35mm FF lens at F8?

This is physics. For the same FOV, the key is always the effective aperture diameter of the lens but not the sensor size, no matter in terms of light gathering power, or diffraction, or focus depth. (This assumes that large sensors and small sensors all have similar quantum efficiency and readout noise. This is roughly true for sensors of the same generation.) On the other hand, in terms of full well potential of the pixels, it's true that larger pixels (and therefore larger sensors) have the advantage. From this point of view, if dynamical range is very important to you, then it is a good idea to pick the larger sensor.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao
04-05-2016, 10:46 AM   #21
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While these are all true points, they are largely irrelevant in this case. The OP specifically mentioned using the two for landscapes, an application where shooting at wide apertures typically is usually seen as undesireable and shooting at very small apertures is the norm in order to catch as wide a DOF as possible.
actually it's totally relevant... for example, ignoring the obvious defects, see the flat focus field on this 35/1.4 lens, shot at f/2, i doubt that there is any mf wide glass on the planet that can match it at the equivalent dof, not even close: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gxrx5uebxgstlk/DSC03353at2point0.JPG

so with that lens, you'd be shooting the scene at a much wider aperture than what is comparably possible with mf, which more than negates the iso advantages of mf.

by definition, wide lenses already have a lot of dof, the only reason you need to stop down is to overcome aberrations, and to include close foreground objects.

if the lens has a flat focus field like that, and there aren't any close foreground objects, there isn't any need to stop way down.
04-05-2016, 10:47 AM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: throughout the US
Posts: 79
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by whwang Quote
That wouldn't change the point. The DOF that one can reach at F11 on 645z may be reached at F8 on a 35mm full frame sensor (roughly speaking) for the same FOV. (You can change this to F16 v F11 if you like.) And the larger aperture of F8 here offers the extra photons to compensate the smaller pixels or the smaller sensor area of the 35mm FF. So again the question is which one delivers a shaper image, a good 645z lens at F11 or a good 35mm FF lens at F8?

This is physics. For the same FOV, the key is always the effective aperture diameter of the lens but not the sensor size, no matter in terms of light gathering power, or diffraction, or focus depth. (This assumes that large sensors and small sensors all have similar quantum efficiency and readout noise. This is roughly true for sensors of the same generation.) On the other hand, in terms of full well potential of the pixels, it's true that larger pixels (and therefore larger sensors) have the advantage. From this point of view, if dynamical range is very important to you, then it is a good idea to pick the larger sensor.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao
Hi Wei-Hao,

I don't dispute your technical info. Here is my own perspective at determing what image quality is appropriate for my own desires:

When I used the Nikon D800 for my landscape work, I was never able to get a 40" wide print (my favorite and most common size) that looked good enough for me - it was starting to fall apart in terms of sharpness, detail, tonal transitions, and overall naturalness and image integrity (I come from a background of printing from 600mb drum scans off of 4x5 film, and I'm picky). But when I switched to the 645D (and later the Z) my first customer print order from that cam was 54" - and I was joyfully shocked how well the print held up - an utterly natural depction of the landscape scene, smooth tonality, loads of detail and plenty of sharpness. And the Z improves on the D's print performance even further.

After writing the above, I should know better to think that a 75mp full frame sensor could replace the print quality I'm enthralled with from the Z. I think at times I get a bit seduced by the sexy small size of the Sony and the huge variety of optics available, and features such as 5-axis stabilization. But as I process through this conversation with everyone's contribution I know full well I need to stay with medium format digital as my main rig.

Cheers,
Ross
04-05-2016, 11:14 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 219
If I was a pixel peeper who shoots only brick walls at F8 then sure! Bring on the high MP small sensors!

However given that I am a image maker, the actual pixel count of the Z was pretty low on my list or reasons for getting one. Using medium format is the same as it ever was in terms of limitations and advantages. I have an RX1RII and a 645z. That RX1RII and Zeiss 35/2 creates some of the nicest files I've ever seen out of a 35mm camera, and the resolution difference is negligible. However, the images out of the Z still sing in a way that 35mm doesn't touch. You could design a test that makes it look like there are hardly any differences, but I don't shoot tests all day. I shoot personal work, fine art, and paid jobs. Shooting Velvia 50 in 35mm is not better than shooting Velvia 100 in 645.

04-05-2016, 01:47 PM   #24
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,605
If you consider that image to have acceptable quality even for a flat, distant landscape, I don't know what to tell you, since nothing is sharp until at least the orange-roofed house in the center, a good 100+ yards out, and there is some pretty horrible decentering going on in the left hand side of the image.

That having been said, Let's compare apples to apples here:

The maximum possible DOF scenario for a 35mm lens at f/2 is to focus dead on the minimum hyperfocal distance allowing for infinity. Using my handy dandy hyperfocal calculator, a subject with a maximum distance of 1000000 ft (infinity in practical terms) gives you a near limit/hyperfocal distance of 59 feet. Restated, 59 to infinity is the absolute minimum distance you can get in focus at that focal length/aperture combo and still have the far background/sky in focus.

For a full 645 format camera, an equivalent width lens would be 59mm. The closest equivalent (actually a bit wider) for the 645 system is currently the A or FA 55mm 2.8, so let's compare the values at 2.8 forward:

FF 35mm near limit at:
f/2.8: 47.5 feet
f/4: 33.6 Feet
f/5.6 23.8 Feet
f/8: 16.9 feet
f/10: 13.4 Feet
f/16: 8.49 Feet
f/22:4.3 Feet

645: Near Limit,
f/2.8:78 feet (already a lot closer than what you show in the attached FF photo!)
f/4: 55 feet
f/5.6 39 Feet
f/8: 27.7 feet
f/10: 21.9 Feet
f/16: 14 feet
f/22: 9.9 Feet
f/32: 6.9 Feet

So these are your differences in max DOF at each aperture:
2.8: 31.5 Feet
4: 21.4 Feet
5.6: 15.2 Feet
8: 10.8 Feet
10: 6.5 Feet
16: 5.5 Feet
22: 3.9 Feet
32: 2.6 Feet

So basically, with equal apertures the DOF advantage is not that drastic, starting out at only 30 feet/10m for landscapes with far subjects, and rapidly decreases for images with nearer subjects as you stop down. And the 645 is maintaining its superior signal to noise ratio and DR advantage the entire time. And oh, did I mention that on the hypothetical 80mm (3.3um pixel size) Sony 35mm sensor, that diffraction, which affects sharpness across the whole image, has already kicked in at f/8? On a hypothetical 100MP 35mm sensor, it's kicked in by 5.6!

A hypothetical 100MP 645 doesn't begin to kick in until f/11. Same with the current cropped 645 sensor. At this point, your DOF is better than that on the FF at its diffraction limit.

Really, the only scenario I can see where having the FF might be better for landscapes would be for high shutter speed handheld shots that would require the very wide apertures to avoid handshake/motion blur. For "serious" controlled landscape setups on a pod (you know, the type that people that are willing to put $10k+ into their setup tend to do), low iso, small aperture shots on the MF are going to beat the 35mm every time. Badly.

QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
actually it's totally relevant... for example, ignoring the obvious defects, see the flat focus field on this 35/1.4 lens, shot at f/2, i doubt that there is any mf wide glass on the planet that can match it at the equivalent dof, not even close: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gxrx5uebxgstlk/DSC03353at2point0.JPG

so with that lens, you'd be shooting the scene at a much wider aperture than what is comparably possible with MF, which more than negates the iso advantages of mf.

by definition, wide lenses already have a lot of dof, the only reason you need to stop down is to overcome aberrations, and to include close foreground objects.

if the lens has a flat focus field like that, and there aren't any close foreground objects, there isn't any need to stop way down.


---------- Post added 04-05-16 at 01:55 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by whwang Quote
That wouldn't change the point. The DOF that one can reach at F11 on 645z may be reached at F8 on a 35mm full frame sensor (roughly speaking) for the same FOV. (You can change this to F16 v F11 if you like.) And the larger aperture of F8 here offers the extra photons to compensate the smaller pixels or the smaller sensor area of the 35mm FF. So again the question is which one delivers a shaper image, a good 645z lens at F11 or a good 35mm FF lens at F8?
Yes, it is basic physics, but you are ignoring an important variable. At identical shutter speeds, the photon statement is kinda true, but we are talking landscapes, here, not photojournalism or sports shooting, so longer exposures are generally practical. At identical ISOs with the proper exposure time adjusted for whatever aperture, the 645 sensor is still collecting 2.6x the number of photons per sensor site.

Also, see my comments regarding diffraction. At an equivalent pixel count (say 100MP) the 645 lens at f11 is just beginning to show diffraction, while the FF lens is already 3 stops down the diffraction curve.

Last edited by dcshooter; 04-05-2016 at 02:08 PM.
04-05-2016, 04:56 PM   #25
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
If you consider that image to have acceptable quality even for a flat, distant landscape,
i clearly stated "ignoring the obvious defects"

it should still be obvious from the right side of the pic what i meant by a flat field lens; it refers to field curvature design, not dof... most wide lenses would be mush on the sides at those wide apertures, due to field curvature and aberrations.

with ff you have many lens choices, so you can find a lens that is optimized for a flat focus field; with mf you only have one wide lens choice.

QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
The maximum possible DOF scenario for a 35mm lens at f/2 is to focus dead on the minimum hyperfocal distance allowing for infinity. Using my handy dandy hyperfocal calculator, a subject with a maximum distance of 1000000 ft (infinity in practical terms) gives you a near limit/hyperfocal distance of 59 feet. Restated, 59 to infinity is the absolute minimum distance you can get in focus at that focal length/aperture combo and still have the far background/sky in focus.
at the f/2 minimal focus distance, the near limit/hyperfocal distance is actually somewhere around 33 ft, not 59 ft. A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator

at the more realistic f/4 minimal focus distance, the near limit/hyperfocal distance is 16 ft, not 33.6 ft... etc.

our numbers are different largely because of where the minimal focus distance is at... so if i needed a close foreground object in focus, ff would have a slight advantage, at more usable wider apertures, assuming the right lens choice.

yes i focused well into the scene there, on the billboard, because i was testing the lens... it failed, lol, i returned it to b&h.

wrt diffraction, there are no dof advantages either way, because when the actual dof is equal(not the aperture numbers on the lens), so is the diffraction.

that's covered in detail here: Equivalence

QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Really, the only scenario I can see where having the FF might be better for landscapes would be for high shutter speed handheld shots that would require the very wide apertures to avoid handshake/motion blur. For "serious" controlled landscape setups on a pod (you know, the type that people that are willing to put $10k+ into their setup tend to do), low iso, small aperture shots on the MF are going to beat the 35mm every time. Badly.
the biggest problem there is that you are making the assumption that both lenses will have the same resolution and the same field curvature characteristics, which is far from true.

anyone... post up your mf 35mm landscape shot, that was taken at f/2.8, and lets evaluate the field curvature characteristics, the vignetting, etc., against the pic i posted...
04-05-2016, 05:01 PM   #26
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 48
Hi Ross,

Let me try to be brief. When you compare the DOF, as I mentioned earlier, you need to compare DOF and photon collecting power under similar effective aperture diameter, not under similar F-ratio. This means, you need to compare F4 on 645z with roughly F2.8 on 35mm FF. Also, diffraction kicks in at the same effective aperture diameter. If it kicks in at F11 on 645, then it kicks in at F8 on 35mm if we require the two lens to have similar FOV under the two sensor formats. These are physics, we can't change that.

You may say this is not fair, why we have to compare two different F-ratio? This is exactly what the lens company try to achieve. Better image quality under larger aperture. IF a 35mm FF lens can be used at a larger aperture, everything you said will be canceled out.

However, see the "IF" there? Your experience on 645D and D800 probably means that the lens you used on D800 is not to that standard yet. Another factor here is the anti-aliasing filter on D800. I also noticed that my 645z is way sharper than my D800 when both are used with a 35mm lens and enlarged equally (or cropped to the same sensor area, so sensor format can't be the reason here). This must be caused by the AA filter.

In all my earlier posts, I never made a conclusion about which sensor format is superior. All I said is that the answer will be determined by the lens.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao
04-05-2016, 06:09 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 878
QuoteOriginally posted by SeattleDucks Quote
Sony has made clear their intentions to continue ramping up resolution in their fullframe cameras, and that's their stated reason for introducing the new higher resolution G Master lenses. Now a Japan source source (published on the web today) is indicating the upcoming A7RIII will have a 75-80MP sensor, and improved 5-axis IBIS.

For me, I love extremely fine detail capture for landscape images, as I do print large and I do enjoy getting up close to a fine art print and seeing breathtaking detail of beautiful subjects. I've owned a ton of digital cameras in the last decade and the 645Z is the first that has come close to giving me 40x30 prints that have resolution rivaling prints from 600MB drum scans from 4x5 Velvia originals (and of course the 645Z blows the 4x5 transparencies away in dynamic range).

If I were to switch to the upcoming Sony it would be not only for the additional resolution but also the 5-axis IBIS and small packable size/weight, making it an ideal travel camera. Also, the ability to adapt virtually any lens to the Sony is very intriguing, as I'd love to use the excellent Canon 24mm TS-E II, among others.

And for those who don't print huge, note that the very exacting and picky Lloyd Chambers has shown that oversampling with more pixels than you think you will ever need does produce better IQ in even modest size prints, as it reduces any sign of digital artifacts.

It would be an interesting discussion to see if any current owners of the 645Z think they will switch over to this new Sony? Why, or why not? Obviously there is no right or wrong answer here. I'd love to hear your own thoughts.

Cheers,
Ross
Interesting question. One of the things I was considering as I am pondering 645Z (3x4) or stay with K1 (2x3) is the aspect ratio. I have shot 2x3 format most of my photographic life. I am warming up to the idea of 3x4. Needless to say 645Z is unmatched in its price category. The samples I have seen from A7RII are crazy good. I can't imagine doubling the resolution. Let's remember, the magic of any of the contenders here is in the sensor and Sony is the creator of these sensors. So if they say they can do it, I suppose they can do it and do it well.
04-05-2016, 06:25 PM   #28
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,605
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
i clearly stated "ignoring the obvious defects"

it should still be obvious from the right side of the pic what i meant by a flat field lens; it refers to field curvature design, not dof... most wide lenses would be mush on the sides at those wide apertures, due to field curvature and aberrations.

with ff you have many lens choices, so you can find a lens that is optimized for a flat focus field; with mf you only have one wide lens choice.
Funny, because when I initially was writing my reply, I was going to talk about the pronounced moustache distortion in your "flat field" image, but when I reread it it reads as if you are talking about the composition of the image.



QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
i clearly stated "ignoring the obvious defects"
at the f/2 minimal focus distance, the near limit/hyperfocal distance is actually somewhere around 33 ft, not 59 ft. A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator

at the more realistic f/4 minimal focus distance, the near limit/hyperfocal distance is 16 ft, not 33.6 ft... etc.
You're misunderstanding what I was doing. The key is to set the focus to maxmum focus distance (i.e. infinity), bringing the hyperfocal and minimmum distances together in order to see stretch the DOF to its max extent, which actually increases the apparent advantages of the 35mm and gives values that would seem more favorable to your argument! At 100 feet at 2.8 (where your calculation apparently is from), the DOF advantage for the FF is only 10 feet! At f/11, the FF advantage is a whopping 6.7 feet.

This is the one I've always used:
Online Depth of Field Calculator

And going back and rechecking my values, I actually messed up and did f/2.2. The actual distance using focus at infinity is even further out at 67 feet.



QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote

the biggest problem there is that you are making the assumption that both lenses will have the same resolution and the same field curvature characteristics, which is far from true.
lpm matters a lot less when your photosites are 2.9x larger. And you are moving the goalposts again by demanding the same field curvature characteristics, considering any other model of 35mm lens in 35mm format would have its own unique field characteristics by virtue of having different optical designs.

QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
anyone... post up your mf 35mm landscape shot, that was taken at f/2.8, and lets evaluate the field curvature characteristics, the vignetting, etc., against the pic i posted...
Again moving the goalposts, demanding a 35mm lens rather than something with an equivalent field of view, and we were specifically talking about an 80MP FF camera that doesn't exist against 100mm FF 645 camera that doesn't exist, but zooming in on the wide angle (lens not indicated, but pretty similar to what your 35mm shows) arctic shots on this page for the Mamiya back that is using the same sensor Kenspo has reported the FF 645z will be using show some pretty damn impressive detail and DOF characteristics while retaining a flat field and exhibiting no vignetting.
04-05-2016, 07:07 PM   #29
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
Funny, because when I initially was writing my reply, I was going to talk about the pronounced moustache distortion in your "flat field" image, but when I reread it it reads as if you are talking about the composition of the image.
it's an astounding example of minimal field curvature, which results in a flat focus field: Tim Ashley Photography | Field Curvature - a Layman's Guide (or How to Focus a 'Tricky' Lens)

yes, the korean 35/1.4 lenses also have a wavy field curvature issue, seen on the right side, but that's not what i'm referring to... i'm assuming zero moustache distortion, i'm talking about comparing focusing between the edges and the centers, which varies greatly with lens design.

QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
You're misunderstanding what I was doing. The key is to set the focus to maxmum focus distance (i.e. infinity), bringing the hyperfocal and minimmum distances together in order to see stretch the DOF to its max extent, which actually increases the apparent advantages of the 35mm and gives values that would seem more favorable to your argument! At 100 feet at 2.8 (where your calculation apparently is from), the DOF advantage for the FF is only 10 feet! At f/11, the FF advantage is a whopping 6.7 feet.
we are on the same page here, we did it the same way... yes it's a small advantage, however that's all that's needed for foreground objects... in theory, if we are working with equal dof/fl on both platforms, how much of a difference can there really be? it's the entire basis of equivalence.

nothing that i did is about dof anyway, it was always strictly about field curvature and lens design.

there is no diffraction advantage either way here, and there is no real dof advantage with either platform... same exact scenario with crop vs. ff.

QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
lpm matters a lot less when your photosites are 2.9x larger.
what that refers to is how pixel density affects diffraction visibility, and there are two sides to that argument, read the link i posted.

to sum it up, pixel density has it's advantages even when the dof/diffraction is equal, because it still retains more resolution.

QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
And you are moving the goalposts again by demanding the same field curvature characteristics
i'm not moving anything, this is reality because there are no lens choices with mf, if your lens has significant field curvature, tough luck, you are stuck with it.

that's the entire point of everything that i said, mf is at a huge disadvantage due to no lens choices.
04-06-2016, 01:11 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 111
I cannot see Sony putting out a 75meg AR7III. That is complete overkill for most A7R users and I think that will mean a drop in sales. It might be 75meg with pixel shift, but not native. Sony may put out a high meg camera in addition to the A7R.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
645d, 645z, aperture, camera, detail, dof, equivalent, f11, feet, ff, focus, frame, glass, landscapes, lens, lenses, love, medium format, print, prints, resolution, sensor, sony, source, switch
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You soon-to-be K-1 owners are getting a Rolls Royce of a camera... BigMackCam Pentax DSLR Discussion 27 03-21-2016 08:43 PM
Tethering coming to a 645Z near you. GarethC7 Pentax Medium Format 41 10-21-2014 04:10 AM
Calling 645Z owners - testing dark frame behaviour Ed Hurst Pentax Medium Format 50 07-31-2014 05:28 PM
K3 vs Sony A7: which one will you buy for the same price? yusuf Pentax K-3 23 06-15-2014 07:46 AM
will you switch to SDHC cards? barondla Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 11-22-2006 04:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top