If you were upgrading ...

  • Thread starter ThankHeavenForShed 7
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


£25million k. ;)

No idea, but I'd guess it'd be in that area.

Yep. There's an older 39mp one on ebay with a contax for £10k, but frankly it looks a bit knackered

Now that Pentax are in the race you may see prices coming down
 
What nobody is explaining to me is what is the point of such things? How many people need to be able to make prints bigger than around 20 inches, which is really where there would be a point in having such high megapixel resolving power? A full frame 25mp dSLR can create a 20 inch print with more than enough detail for anyone's needs, probably near enough equivalent to the very best medium format camera. Anything bigger than that and you need a large format camera anyway (where film is still king, and will probably remain so). The dSLR then also blows any medium format camera away with its technical capabilities such as shutter speed range, 5fps shooting, sophisticated metering and focus systems etc etc etc., not to mention the dedicated systems (flash etc) and portability benefits. And all for a fraction of the cost of one of these beasts. I just don't really see the point of going down the digital MF route for all but very specialist photographers who might need to make prints the size of a wall.
 
What nobody is explaining to me is what is the point of such things? How many people need to be able to make prints bigger than around 20 inches, which is really where there would be a point in having such high megapixel resolving power? A full frame 25mp dSLR can create a 20 inch print with more than enough detail for anyone's needs, probably near enough equivalent to the very best medium format camera. Anything bigger than that and you need a large format camera anyway (where film is still king, and will probably remain so). The dSLR then also blows any medium format camera away with its technical capabilities such as shutter speed range, 5fps shooting, sophisticated metering and focus systems etc etc etc., not to mention the dedicated systems (flash etc) and portability benefits. And all for a fraction of the cost of one of these beasts. I just don't really see the point of going down the digital MF route for all but very specialist photographers who might need to make prints the size of a wall.

That's the point, with the new Pentax it's no longer a fraction of the cost, from the high end 35mm equivalent to MF

Overnight they have reduced the entry level from 25k ish to 10k ish

And I'm used to large format
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What nobody is explaining to me is what is the point of such things? How many people need to be able to make prints bigger than around 20 inches, which is really where there would be a point in having such high megapixel resolving power? A full frame 25mp dSLR can create a 20 inch print with more than enough detail for anyone's needs, probably near enough equivalent to the very best medium format camera. Anything bigger than that and you need a large format camera anyway (where film is still king, and will probably remain so). The dSLR then also blows any medium format camera away with its technical capabilities such as shutter speed range, 5fps shooting, sophisticated metering and focus systems etc etc etc., not to mention the dedicated systems (flash etc) and portability benefits. And all for a fraction of the cost of one of these beasts. I just don't really see the point of going down the digital MF route for all but very specialist photographers who might need to make prints the size of a wall.

The benefit in my line of work is large format printing - billboards and the likes. 80mp means that you can crop judiciously into the image without knackering resolution. Plus the Phase One is about as portable as a pro-level DSLR. You could certainly shoot handheld without any problems.

To be clear, I commission photographers with this type of equipment, there is no way on this planet I'd ever need or be able to afford that kind of equipment myself.
 
The benefit in my line of work is large format printing - billboards and the likes. 80mp means that you can crop judiciously into the image without knackering resolution. Plus the Phase One is about as portable as a pro-level DSLR. You could certainly shoot handheld without any problems.

To be clear, I commission photographers with this type of equipment, there is no way on this planet I'd ever need or be able to afford that kind of equipment myself.

That I can understand, certainly, though even bilboard photography is only intended to be seen from a distance and is printed at pretty low resolution (I'm guessing, mind, please feel free to correct my ignorance). Same goes for most large images I imagine, except perhaps in the fine art market and the like.

Certainly for most applications where professional photographers have in the past used medium format, such as weddings, architecture, high quality catalogues/brochures/magazines, fashion, portraiture etc, I'd imagine a full frame 25MP digital SLR pretty much does the job and does it better in many ways.

Obviously there are advantages to having enormous resolution in terms of cropping tightly, but that's a fairly limited advantage, and most accomplished photographers can surely do the bulk of their cropping with their viewfinder (and with dSLRs using a smaller format the practical range of usable lenses becomes much wider, meaning you're better able to create the image you want from the off).

Don't get me wrong, I like the sound of this stuff too, but just can't imagine that many practical applications.
 
Update to this...

My tests on the Pentax 645D, showed that film was still significantly sharper :neutral:

And that's a 40mp £10k camera :oops: I might post the comparisons if I get a chance
 
Ooer. Sensor density issues ?

Digi is shite issues ;)

I dunno really, just not the resolution to compare to larger film formats...

Although plenty seem to be using backs to replace 5x4 film :confused:

Pentax 645d

picture.php


film

IMG]http://www.readytogo.net/smb/picture.php?albumid=306&pictureid=1664[/IMG]
 
645d

picture.php


film

picture.php


digi was 55mm lens
film was lens with very similar angle of coverage

Both unsharpened...

Really pronounced difference on second one

Some chromatic aberration on the digi too
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To my eye there is more detail in the digital image, but a lack of detail in film is rendered more pleasingly as it's not made from pixels - the whole grain v noise argument.

Might be just me like.
 
To my eye there is more detail in the digital image, but a lack of detail in film is rendered more pleasingly as it's not made from pixels - the whole grain v noise argument.

Might be just me like.

Look at the word 'mortgage'... at the bottom of shop...

Also the lettering on the blue sign hidden behind the tree...

The differences were easier to see before I resized them for here like...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at the word 'mortgage'... at the bottom of shop...

Also the lettering on the blue sign hidden behind the tree...

The differences were easier to see before I resized them for here like...

Aye, I see it now. Plus there's a lot more noise on the internal wall at the far left of frame. I actually tried a similar test between a 120 film medium format camera and a 12.4mp DSLR - the film camera trounced it, even at a fairly piddly scan resolution.

Your horizon is crooked btw.
 
Aye, I see it now. Plus there's a lot more noise on the internal wall at the far left of frame. I actually tried a similar test between a 120 film medium format camera and a 12.4mp DSLR - the film camera trounced it, even at a fairly piddly scan resolution.

Your horizon is crooked btw.

ah, but of course it's not. It's lens distortion as both are taken from the left of the frame :cool: :lol:

Plus there's a lot more noise on the internal wall at the far left of frame. .

yep, good spot
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top