Prev: Why do we need cameras like the D700 or D3s?
Next: How to fix tiny tear in camera bag before it widens?
From: David J. Littleboy on 19 Feb 2010 05:01

"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...(a)gol.com> wrote:
> "Bruce" <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Medium format also suffers from a poor selection of wide angle lenses,
> > not helped by the sensors being smaller than medium format film.
>
> It's not as bad as you think. Both Mamiya and Hasselblad make wide angles
> that don't cover the whole film format. I haven't checked the numbers, but
> I
> think a 20mm equivalent FoV is available in most MF digital sytems
> nowadays.
>
> > There is also the restricted depth of field compared with "35mm"
> > digital,
>
> Not really. It turns out that maximum DoF is a function not of format but
> of
> desired resolution. If you shoot a 12MP FF vs. a 12MP APS-C, diffraction
> bites you sooner and you can't stop down as far on the APS-C, and the
> result
> is that there isn't any difference. If you are shooting a 24MP FF vs. a
> 12MP
> APS-C, you are targetting larger prints with more detail, and can't stop
> down as much. (Unless you accept 12MP levels of detail in your 24MP
> images,
> but most folks don't buy a 24MP camera to take 12MP images.)
>
> > the lack of lenses with maximum apertures wider than f/2.8
> > and the lack of any IS/VR anti-shake feature. The latter two combine
> > to make a tripod a necessity for a greater proportion of work than
> > with "35mm" digital.
>
> Right. But when the object is to produce high-quality images for larger
> prints, you do most of your work on a tripod stopped down to f/8 or
> smaller,
> regardless of format.
>
> The bottom line here is that the 20+ MP dSLRs produce gorgeous 12x18
> prints*, and to do better at larger sizes, you need to go to either 4x5
> film
> or MF digital. Since MF digital is a lot easier to use than 4x5 film,
>
> *: I have a Mamiya 7 and a Nikon 9000, and while this combo may edge out
> the
> 5D2, the difference isn't all that large. The Mamiya 7 + 43mm lens is
> still
> getting used, since my Zeiss 21/2.8 is still backordered. Sigh.

The best film images 35mm that I've seen just about match an 8
megapixel APS sensor, and old one. New 10-12M APS sensors are FAR
better in just about every aspect, not the least of which is
resolution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Where did I say anything about 35mm film?

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: RichA on 19 Feb 2010 16:26
On Feb 19, 5:01 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...(a)gol.com> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...(a)gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Bruce" <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Medium format also suffers from a poor selection of wide angle lenses,
> > > not helped by the sensors being smaller than medium format film.
>
> > It's not as bad as you think. Both Mamiya and Hasselblad make wide angles
> > that don't cover the whole film format. I haven't checked the numbers, but
> > I
> > think a 20mm equivalent FoV is available in most MF digital sytems
> > nowadays.
>
> > > There is also the restricted depth of field compared with "35mm"
> > > digital,
>
> > Not really. It turns out that maximum DoF is a function not of format but
> > of
> > desired resolution. If you shoot a 12MP FF vs. a 12MP APS-C, diffraction
> > bites you sooner and you can't stop down as far on the APS-C, and the
> > result
> > is that there isn't any difference. If you are shooting a 24MP FF vs. a
> > 12MP
> > APS-C, you are targetting larger prints with more detail, and can't stop
> > down as much. (Unless you accept 12MP levels of detail in your 24MP
> > images,
> > but most folks don't buy a 24MP camera to take 12MP images.)
>
> > > the lack of lenses with maximum apertures wider than f/2.8
> > > and the lack of any IS/VR anti-shake feature. The latter two combine
> > > to make a tripod a necessity for a greater proportion of work than
> > > with "35mm" digital.
>
> > Right. But when the object is to produce high-quality images for larger
> > prints, you do most of your work on a tripod stopped down to f/8 or
> > smaller,
> > regardless of format.
>
> > The bottom line here is that the 20+ MP dSLRs produce gorgeous 12x18
> > prints*, and to do better at larger sizes, you need to go to either 4x5
> > film
> > or MF digital. Since MF digital is a lot easier to use than 4x5 film,
>
> > *: I have a Mamiya 7 and a Nikon 9000, and while this combo may edge out
> > the
> > 5D2, the difference isn't all that large. The Mamiya 7 + 43mm lens is
> > still
> > getting used, since my Zeiss 21/2.8 is still backordered. Sigh.
>
> The best film images 35mm that I've seen just about match an 8
> megapixel APS sensor, and old one.  New 10-12M APS sensors are FAR
> better in just about every aspect, not the least of which is
> resolution.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Where did I say anything about 35mm film?
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Sorry! I mistook the Mamiya 7 for a Minolta 7 35mm. The day before I
watched a guy trying to beat down a store on the price of one of these
(apparently, they are somewhat collectable) and it stuck in my mind.
I wholly agree about the medium format versus the FF sensor.

From: RichA on 19 Feb 2010 16:31
On Feb 19, 5:26 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:29:43 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The best film images 35mm that I've seen just about match an 8
> >megapixel APS sensor, and old one.  New 10-12M APS sensors are FAR
> >better in just about every aspect, not the least of which is
> >resolution.
>
> If you tell yourself that 100 times, you might just begin to believe
> it.  Unfortunately, even if you tell yourself that 1000 times, it
> still won't be true.

One of the tired, stupid arguments the film buffs use to prove film's
superiority is that a scanned 35mm fill frame will produce a huge file
relative to a digital sensor, therefore the film frame "must" have
much more detail in it. This argument is used often and it is
complete B.S. Scanners record the grain of the film and that produces
the huge files. Proving this is easy, all you have to do is scan a
high ISO grainy film image and that file will be FAR larger than a
fine-grain image. Net result is, no normal film (400 chromagenic B&W
and 100 ISO colour neg being the most detailed right now) at 35mm can
come close to a 10-12 megapixel sensor for recording detail and I DEFY
anyone to produce a PROVABLE test to show otherwise.
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Feb 2010 22:19
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 2:15�pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >And this one is only 45 megapixels, not 60.
>>
>> Rich is an idiot who thinks that image quality is the ONLY
>> consideration. �Except, of course, when it comes to his own wallet.
>>
>> > �Interesting thing, I'd
>> >have expected going from 12-24 megapixels to show at least a great a
>> >detail jump as going from 24-48 megapixels, but that isn't the case
>> >here.
>>
>> And it's kind of hard to do sports photography at less than one frame
>> per second.
>>
>> >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028
>
>High quality landscape work, studio product shots, the medium format
>clobbers the FX.

Bullshit. Medium-format cameras are specialized cameras with limited
uses.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on 21 Feb 2010 19:26
George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 2/20/10 9:19 PM, in article 4b80a632$0$1633$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
>Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 2:15�pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> And this one is only 45 megapixels, not 60.
>>>>
>>>> Rich is an idiot who thinks that image quality is the ONLY
>>>> consideration. �Except, of course, when it comes to his own wallet.
>>>>
>>>>> �Interesting thing, I'd
>>>>> have expected going from 12-24 megapixels to show at least a great a
>>>>> detail jump as going from 24-48 megapixels, but that isn't the case
>>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> And it's kind of hard to do sports photography at less than one frame
>>>> per second.
>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30419028
>>>
>>> High quality landscape work, studio product shots, the medium format
>>> clobbers the FX.
>>
>> Bullshit. Medium-format cameras are specialized cameras with limited
>> uses.
>
>Speakith the

Go away, idiot. Try again when you have something other than your
screeching hate to contribute.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Why do we need cameras like the D700 or D3s?
Next: How to fix tiny tear in camera bag before it widens?