Prev: Why do we need cameras like the D700 or D3s?
Next: How to fix tiny tear in camera bag before it widens?
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Feb 2010 14:15
RichA <rander3127(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


--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: John A. on 18 Feb 2010 14:35
On 18 Feb 2010 19:15:58 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>RichA <rander3127(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

No video either, I'm guessing.
From: Rich on 18 Feb 2010 17:12
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.
From: Mark Sieving on 18 Feb 2010 17:37
On Feb 18, 4:12 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> High quality landscape work, studio product shots, the medium format
> clobbers the FX.

Just as medium format film was superior to 35 mm film for those
applications. It's hardly a surprise. You have to balance those
advantages against the lower cost and greater convenience of the
smaller formats.
From: RichA on 18 Feb 2010 21:29
On Feb 18, 7:18 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...(a)gol.com> wrote:
> "Bruce" <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:37:34 -0800 (PST), Mark Sieving
> > <mark_siev...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 18, 4:12 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> High quality landscape work, studio product shots, the medium format
> >>> clobbers the FX.
>
> >>Just as medium format film was superior to 35 mm film for those
> >>applications.  It's hardly a surprise.  You have to balance those
> >>advantages against the lower cost and greater convenience of the
> >>smaller formats.
>
> > 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.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

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.
 |  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?