645D is here ...

stormcloud · 02-12-2010, 08:10 PM

is there much point in mf camera at 30mp? ff cameras is at that and probably soon past it - kinda needs to be in the 50mp range to make it worth the hassle

thibs · 02-13-2010, 02:40 AM

IMO there's as much point as chosing a 12Mpix DSLR over a 12Mix P&S.

jmbradd · 02-13-2010, 02:45 AM

not to be rude or anything but the true benefit of a larger sensor (MF or FF) is not high resolution but better image quality. More space between photosites on the sensor means better performance.

Also, what would you do with those 20 extra megapixels that would suddenly make it worth your while?

ps. For the record, I will not be purchasing a 645d or even a FF dslr when it comes out eventually.

asdf · 02-13-2010, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by jmbradd

not to be rude or anything but the true benefit of a larger sensor (MF or FF) is not high resolution but better image quality. More space between photosites on the sensor means better performance.

Also, what would you do with those 20 extra megapixels that would suddenly make it worth your while?

ps. For the record, I will not be purchasing a 645d or even a FF dslr when it comes out eventually.

More resolution (and a larger sensor) allows for poster sized prints and/or tighter cropping. It really doesn't matter whether you find that useful or not. Somebody out there does.

jptreen · 02-13-2010, 05:13 AM

I don't see the point in higher resolution FF cameras. The quality of the glass isn't there to make it worthwhile. A 30MP MF camera will beat a 30MP FF camera out of the water in IQ. 15MP is really a bit too much for APS-C, 30MP is a bit too mch for FF, who knows...70MP would be pusing it for MF?

Large wall-sized prints, tack sharp billboards at ten paces, it's not the land of the amateur, but it's like someone once said about an extreme wide angle lens. It's totally pointless until you absoloutly can't do without it.

ogl · 02-13-2010, 07:03 AM

Number of pixels of optimal size for different apertures of a diffraction limited lens,
wavelengths of the light and formats, considering 2 pixels per Airy disk diameter.

You have all the data at hand, but take the green-yellow light and f/8-f/11 aperture values as a reference. It represents a realistic, not too demanding case. Consider a 35mm system with a lens at f/11. At best, the maximum resolution you will get is equivalent to 16 MP, even if your camera has 22 or 25 MP. In the case of an APS-C based system the limit goes to 7 MP, and 4 MP considering a Four Thirds format. Stopping down to f/22 the limit of the effective resolution of the 35mm based system goes to 4 MP!

ogl · 02-13-2010, 07:18 AM

It's not bad to put 30 MP sensor in 24*36 mm, you can use all apertures till f/8 and you get 16 MP's resolution picture at f/11.

As for MF, it will be better not to put above 60 MP in sensor 36*48 mm, but it's easy to put more in bigger sensor.

As for APC-S - you think that 15 MP is enough. But, even with 27 MP sensor in APS-C you can shoot with apertures till f/5.6

Last edited by ogl; 02-13-2010 at 07:25 AM.

jogiba · 02-13-2010, 07:32 AM

So how many here are going to purchase the 645D body for $9,500 ? I still have my 6x7 Pentax with four lenses and Epson V700 scanner and could get huge files using the latest 120 film like 100 Velvia.
But I would prefer a FF DSLR with EVF and 1080p video with manual control to use with my many FF K mount lenses.

pingflood · 02-13-2010, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by jptreen

I don't see the point in higher resolution FF cameras. The quality of the glass isn't there to make it worthwhile. A 30MP MF camera will beat a 30MP FF camera out of the water in IQ. 15MP is really a bit too much for APS-C, 30MP is a bit too mch for FF, who knows...70MP would be pusing it for MF?

Large wall-sized prints, tack sharp billboards at ten paces, it's not the land of the amateur, but it's like someone once said about an extreme wide angle lens. It's totally pointless until you absoloutly can't do without it.

Why is 15MP 'a bit too much' for APS-C? I shoot a 15MP APS-C camera and for what I do (wildlife, always wide open at f/5.6) it's far superior to the previous generation 10MP camera in the same line. At ISO 1600 and up there's not a lot of difference, but below that the higher MP camera pulls in quite a bit more detail making for nicer large prints and tighter crops. And good glass has enough quality to not only handle this pixel density but more.

ogl · 02-13-2010, 10:50 AM

14.6 MP is good. But 18 MP is rather high.

jptreen · 02-13-2010, 11:50 AM

Don't get me wrong, I shoot 15MP as well, the only glass I have that I still regard as 'superb' all round at 15MP is my DA 35 Ltd. I have Pentax 16-50, 50-135, 70 Ltd, 50/1.4, and a few non Pentax lenses, my experience with all of them is that they suffer moving from 10MP to 15MP. The only reason I don't doubt my K-7 is that the DA 35 is still perfect.

I'm not saying I can't get tack sharp shots with these lenses at 14.6, but I feel my hit-rate for similar situations has dropped. I can't prove it, I'm too busy te test it, I'm going with my gut.

jeffkrol · 02-13-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by ogl

14.6 MP is good. But 18 MP is rather high.

Bring on the gigapixel sensors.......
http://ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/Gigapixel%20Digital%20Film%20Sensor%20Proposal.pdf
http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2007%20Workshop/2007%20Papers/0...%20et%20al.pdf
http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2009%20Workshop/2009%20Papers/0...a_smallpix.pdf
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=34477953

emr · 02-13-2010, 01:15 PM

OK, I'm as excited as anyone here over that Pentax is releasing, not a full frame, but an über full frame camera. But what will one actually gain from the bigger sensor provided it's implemented properly? Higher dynamic range, more sensitivity, more pixels, right? So who's expected to use one of these beasts (and who's using the competing digital MF cameras)? Pro landscape photographers? Fashion photographers who print BIG? Who else? Naturally, if the price is right, many amateurs here may buy one, but who really needs one or actually gains from one?

pingflood · 02-13-2010, 02:10 PM

Honestly, how many on here would buy one even at $6500?

Maffer · 02-13-2010, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by ogl

It's not bad to put 30 MP sensor in 24*36 mm, you can use all apertures till f/8 and you get 16 MP's resolution picture at f/11.

As for MF, it will be better not to put above 60 MP in sensor 36*48 mm, but it's easy to put more in bigger sensor.

As for APC-S - you think that 15 MP is enough. But, even with 27 MP sensor in APS-C you can shoot with apertures till f/5.6

Time to pull the tilt&shift lenses out of the pocket with hi-res sensors. Then, f/8 is more than enough for average landscapes.

02-13-2010, 07:03 AM	#141
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Number of pixels of optimal size for different apertures of a diffraction limited lens, wavelengths of the light and formats, considering 2 pixels per Airy disk diameter. You have all the data at hand, but take the green-yellow light and f/8-f/11 aperture values as a reference. It represents a realistic, not too demanding case. Consider a 35mm system with a lens at f/11. At best, the maximum resolution you will get is equivalent to 16 MP, even if your camera has 22 or 25 MP. In the case of an APS-C based system the limit goes to 7 MP, and 4 MP considering a Four Thirds format. Stopping down to f/22 the limit of the effective resolution of the 35mm based system goes to 4 MP! Attached Images

02-13-2010, 11:54 AM	#147
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	More. Originally posted by ogl 14.6 MP is good. But 18 MP is rather high. Bring on the gigapixel sensors....... http://ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/Gigapixel%20Digital%20Film%20Sensor%20Proposal.pdf http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2007%20Workshop/2007%20Papers/0...%20et%20al.pdf http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2009%20Workshop/2009%20Papers/0...a_smallpix.pdf http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=34477953 Last edited by jeffkrol; 02-13-2010 at 12:04 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
645d!!!	insulinguy	Pentax News and Rumors	1	10-12-2010 07:36 AM
645D now available in the UK	robbiec	Pentax News and Rumors	3	09-21-2010 03:01 AM
Using the 645D...	HawaiianOnline	Pentax Medium Format	13	03-23-2010 07:17 PM
645D or something else?	GordonZA	Pentax News and Rumors	7	03-09-2010 02:24 PM
Who would consider a 645D?	Elton	Pentax Medium Format	11	09-28-2007 07:39 PM

02-12-2010, 08:10 PM	#136
stormcloud Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 232	is there much point in mf camera at 30mp? ff cameras is at that and probably soon past it - kinda needs to be in the 50mp range to make it worth the hassle

02-13-2010, 02:40 AM	#137
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	IMO there's as much point as chosing a 12Mpix DSLR over a 12Mix P&S.

02-13-2010, 02:45 AM	#138
jmbradd Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portland, OR Photos: Albums Posts: 325	not to be rude or anything but the true benefit of a larger sensor (MF or FF) is not high resolution but better image quality. More space between photosites on the sensor means better performance. Also, what would you do with those 20 extra megapixels that would suddenly make it worth your while? ps. For the record, I will not be purchasing a 645d or even a FF dslr when it comes out eventually.

02-13-2010, 03:27 AM	#139
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by jmbradd not to be rude or anything but the true benefit of a larger sensor (MF or FF) is not high resolution but better image quality. More space between photosites on the sensor means better performance. Also, what would you do with those 20 extra megapixels that would suddenly make it worth your while? ps. For the record, I will not be purchasing a 645d or even a FF dslr when it comes out eventually. More resolution (and a larger sensor) allows for poster sized prints and/or tighter cropping. It really doesn't matter whether you find that useful or not. Somebody out there does.

02-13-2010, 05:13 AM	#140
jptreen Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: "around" Posts: 116	I don't see the point in higher resolution FF cameras. The quality of the glass isn't there to make it worthwhile. A 30MP MF camera will beat a 30MP FF camera out of the water in IQ. 15MP is really a bit too much for APS-C, 30MP is a bit too mch for FF, who knows...70MP would be pusing it for MF? Large wall-sized prints, tack sharp billboards at ten paces, it's not the land of the amateur, but it's like someone once said about an extreme wide angle lens. It's totally pointless until you absoloutly can't do without it.

02-13-2010, 07:18 AM	#142
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	It's not bad to put 30 MP sensor in 2436 mm, you can use all apertures till f/8 and you get 16 MP's resolution picture at f/11. As for MF, it will be better not to put above 60 MP in sensor 3648 mm, but it's easy to put more in bigger sensor. As for APC-S - you think that 15 MP is enough. But, even with 27 MP sensor in APS-C you can shoot with apertures till f/5.6 Last edited by ogl; 02-13-2010 at 07:25 AM.

02-13-2010, 07:32 AM	#143
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	So how many here are going to purchase the 645D body for $9,500 ? I still have my 6x7 Pentax with four lenses and Epson V700 scanner and could get huge files using the latest 120 film like 100 Velvia. But I would prefer a FF DSLR with EVF and 1080p video with manual control to use with my many FF K mount lenses.

02-13-2010, 10:17 AM	#144
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by jptreen I don't see the point in higher resolution FF cameras. The quality of the glass isn't there to make it worthwhile. A 30MP MF camera will beat a 30MP FF camera out of the water in IQ. 15MP is really a bit too much for APS-C, 30MP is a bit too mch for FF, who knows...70MP would be pusing it for MF? Large wall-sized prints, tack sharp billboards at ten paces, it's not the land of the amateur, but it's like someone once said about an extreme wide angle lens. It's totally pointless until you absoloutly can't do without it. Why is 15MP 'a bit too much' for APS-C? I shoot a 15MP APS-C camera and for what I do (wildlife, always wide open at f/5.6) it's far superior to the previous generation 10MP camera in the same line. At ISO 1600 and up there's not a lot of difference, but below that the higher MP camera pulls in quite a bit more detail making for nicer large prints and tighter crops. And good glass has enough quality to not only handle this pixel density but more.

02-13-2010, 10:50 AM	#145
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	14.6 MP is good. But 18 MP is rather high.

02-13-2010, 11:50 AM	#146
jptreen Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: "around" Posts: 116	Don't get me wrong, I shoot 15MP as well, the only glass I have that I still regard as 'superb' all round at 15MP is my DA 35 Ltd. I have Pentax 16-50, 50-135, 70 Ltd, 50/1.4, and a few non Pentax lenses, my experience with all of them is that they suffer moving from 10MP to 15MP. The only reason I don't doubt my K-7 is that the DA 35 is still perfect. I'm not saying I can't get tack sharp shots with these lenses at 14.6, but I feel my hit-rate for similar situations has dropped. I can't prove it, I'm too busy te test it, I'm going with my gut.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2010, 01:15 PM	#148
emr Guest	OK, I'm as excited as anyone here over that Pentax is releasing, not a full frame, but an über full frame camera. But what will one actually gain from the bigger sensor provided it's implemented properly? Higher dynamic range, more sensitivity, more pixels, right? So who's expected to use one of these beasts (and who's using the competing digital MF cameras)? Pro landscape photographers? Fashion photographers who print BIG? Who else? Naturally, if the price is right, many amateurs here may buy one, but who really needs one or actually gains from one?

02-13-2010, 02:10 PM	#149
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Honestly, how many on here would buy one even at $6500?

02-13-2010, 02:41 PM	#150
Maffer Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 308	Originally posted by ogl It's not bad to put 30 MP sensor in 2436 mm, you can use all apertures till f/8 and you get 16 MP's resolution picture at f/11. As for MF, it will be better not to put above 60 MP in sensor 3648 mm, but it's easy to put more in bigger sensor. As for APC-S - you think that 15 MP is enough. But, even with 27 MP sensor in APS-C you can shoot with apertures till f/5.6 Time to pull the tilt&shift lenses out of the pocket with hi-res sensors. Then, f/8 is more than enough for average landscapes.