[Gyroscope]

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.

[SeattleDucks]

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.

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.

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 😀

[whwang]

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

[osv]

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.

[SeattleDucks]

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

[Sperdynamite]

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.

[osv]

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.

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

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...

[whwang]

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

[btnapa]

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.

[osv]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheDocAUS]

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.

[osv]

I'm presuming this is the Art series Sigma?

no, it's one of the korean 35/1.4 junk lenses.

There you go, moving the goalposts again. We are liteally talking a couple of feet at the f/16-f/22 range where landscapes are typically taken.

no, it's foolish to shoot ff landscape shots at f/16-f/22, because of diffraction losses... for example, this m28/3.5 ooc jpeg shot, taken at f/8 or possibly f/10, are you really going to sit there and claim that it should have been shot at f/16-f/22? blow it up to 100%, and tell us what exactly would be gained by taking this pic at f/16-f/22:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/86ch2xumwhq060r/DSC01364smcm283point5f8.JPG

Funny, you injected yourself into a discussion about DOF with that image,

this was never a discussion about dof, read the thread title: "645z owners: will you switch to sony 75mp a7riii"

i never claimed anything about dof platform comparisons, because it doesn't matter; that was your tangent entirely, my point was field curvature and lens design advantages at wider apertures.

in direct response to my point that the vast majority of the time landscape photographers will be using small apertures to maximize DOF over the whole image, a scenario where your ill thought-out tangent about flat fields is irrelevant.

no, whwang for instance was very clear, he said the same thing that i did: "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."

i'm not sure why you keep insisting that landscape photos must always be taken at diffraction-crippled apertures

iI presume you are seizing on this quote: "All else equal, more pixels will always resolve more detail, regardless of other sources of blur, including diffraction."
But you missed out on a couple of importnat things. First, he is specifically talking about 2 systems with identically sized sensors using an identical lens.

only to illustrate the effects of pixel density, remember that it's an article on equivalence, the effects of pixel density are not relevant to sensor size.

everything that he said there about higher pixel density is verifiable with the Diffraction Limited Aperture Calculator Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

raise the pixel density on any given sensor size, and watch what happens.

[2351HD]

Take a chill pill fellows.........

I feel that I would have to buy into the Otus line and a D810 to get better than what I have on my 645z, but even then I might prefer the MF image over the 35mm image.

Sure the A7Rii and future bodies might be good, but really 80mp in a35mm sensor, tech had better come a long long way from where it is now if that is to be any good at all. OSV you would want to have some serious lenses and shot discipline to get the best out of that and I think that only the Otus line would be up to the task. Couple it with a small A7 body, no thanks.

[itshimitis]

no, it's one of the korean 35/1.4 junk lenses.



no, it's foolish to shoot ff landscape shots at f/16-f/22, because of diffraction losses... for example, this m28/3.5 ooc jpeg shot, taken at f/8 or possibly f/10, are you really going to sit there and claim that it should have been shot at f/16-f/22? blow it up to 100%, and tell us what exactly would be gained by taking this pic at f/16-f/22:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/86ch2xumwhq060r/DSC01364smcm283point5f8.JPG

.

If you could get your head from the computer screen you would realise there are many reasons for landscape photographers to shoot with small apertures. Blow it up to 100%? You don't understand REAL photography at all, stick to your charts and pixel peeping. A photograph - a real one doesn't stand or fall simply by how it looks at 100%. It's about feel and emotion. One or two of the photographs I have submitted to an international gallery aren't pin sharp at 100% but they were still selected by the gallery curators.

Step away from the gear-head aspects and learn aesthetics. Stop looking at pixel level, you'll go cross-eyed

[Digitalis]

no thanks. it sounds like a downgrade to me.

^ what he said, plus I have a 100Mp camera at my disposal so the small format Sony A7r shooters can go cram it.