Medium Digital Format

paulr

I use Lexar 128gb 1066x160mb/s cards never filled the card in a day. You do tend to take less shots with DMF.

WestEndFoto

Your fine. XQD has lots of room to grow.

donaldejose

Interesting. Better, but at a tremendous additional cost. www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6jfDQ26DI

DenverShooter

Phase One just introduced their 151MP back.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/XF-Camera-System/IQ4/XF-IQ4-150MP-Camera-System.aspx

Denver Shooter

donaldejose

Looks really good! But I just don't have $50,000 for the back alone!

DenverShooter

Its only $331.1258278146 per megapixel.

A bargain at twice the price!

Denver Shooter

[Deleted User]

With Medium Format, even a tiny miss in focus will be very noticeable, and adequate focus coverage perhaps more difficult than FF. So each shot, particularly with 200 mp in use, will need to be very precise corner to corner. So each shot becomes more deliberate like the dated view camera = fewer shots.

It's a rational reason to eschew mf in favor of FF, getting everything in correct focus is that much easier with the latter particularly with t/s lenses.

On another side note, leica's s3 might be of interest if it hits 60 or so MPs. Likely unrelistically priced for most.

I also cannot see the rationale of 290mps unless you are downsampling to reduce noise and printing to billboard sizes. The nikon d850 natively produces 24x30 print size at 300 dpi i believe, and many can produce larger prints from flawless files.

The investment in very large orints is massive, unless one has the discretionary income not to have to worry about recouping all direct costs from an exhibition worth of prints. Hans Strand's prints from 100mp camera are incredibly detailed at huge sizes. Not sure that 200mp cameras other than multishots are really feasible without increasing sensor size which might require newly developed lenses to realize the benefits of that resolution but also to cover the larger sensor. 150mp may be the limit with current largest mf sensors. I am no optic expert, but isnt their diminishing quailty the more mps you squeeze onto a sensor?

WestEndFoto

Flip, on the DOF front, just stop down. Your DOF will widen and diffraction will get you down to full frame resolution. Then why go to medium format one might ask. Because just like full frame vs APS-C, the bigger format gives you options that you don’t have with the smaller format.

spraynpray

- Just the same way that DX gives you options that are not available with FX. I personally still do believe that DX serves hobby enthusiasts better than FX and that 24mp is the sweet spot of detail vs low-light (and I own a D850). My experience is based on using FX lenses on DX bodies and YMMV.

I guess that is why we have these options available to spend our cash on - different strokes for different folks.

paulr

Phaseone have indeed introduced their new future camera the IQ4 150mp camera, but its not just all about pixels. back illuminated sensors 16 bit colour and current 15 stop dynamic range. Their Blue Ring Schneider Lenses are designed for super high mp sensors, No colour bleed on prime colours.High speed wifi and a first for Phaseone dual memory slots. With a sensor size 2 and half times bigger than FF DSLR, its just mathematics why the images are better.
I have used the IQ3 100mp for a year now, but on certain work, the 35mm just works better given the working conditions.

snakebunk

@spraynpray: What dx options do you miss on fx?

WestEndFoto

Yes, I have the same question. Lower price and sometimes weight I suppose. DOF is not one of the benefits. Just stop down an extra stop if you need that in FX.

BVS

WestEndFoto said:

Yes, I have the same question. Lower price and sometimes weight I suppose. DOF is not one of the benefits. Just stop down an extra stop if you need that in FX.

Compared to low-res (e.g. 24MP) FX, DX gives you more telephoto reach, and possibly better sharpness/detail due to no AA filter. If both are DSLRs, then the DX has better AF point coverage. DX also has more 'convenience' lenses available for casual use if you want to travel small and light.

Of course, hi-res FX like D850 eliminates the reach and detail benefit, and mirrorless eliminates the AF point coverage benefit and helps with size and weight somewhat.

mhedges

What do folks use the PhaseOne cameras for? Is it mostly studio work, or do people take them out and about?

WestEndFoto

Someone I know specialized in trees and his prints are huge. A tree is quite a challenge if you want to do it right. If their is the slightest hint of a breeze, the leaves move.

[Deleted User]

Paulr, what subjects and how do incorporate the phase one into your shooting venues. Studio, day hikes, fashion, street, travel, etc? Where do you find you benefit from its capabilities?

Why would you not choose a high mp ff dslr instead (assuming static subjects). In fact why wouldnt a d850 satisfy in virtually all situation?

Why would you need 200mps? In what situations?

Just curious as i evaluate changes for myself.

BVS

flip said:

Why would you not choose a high mp ff dslr instead (assuming static subjects). In fact why wouldnt a d850 satisfy in virtually all situation?

Or a camera that can do pixel shift like A7RIII.

paulr

WEF Flip I could not get a D850 when they came out, have a D810. been sat on the fence for years regarding DMF having used MF with Film. So tried a IQ1 60mp and then went onto a IQ3 100mp. I use it all the time now, I have 8 lenses.Landscape. Studio. I live in Portugal in Winter , The DMF system comes with me.The D810 is only used if low light and fast frames per second are needed, quite rare these days for my usage. Why DMF, simple when you look at the screen on a 27 inch Mac and see the detail and dynamic range its just incredible. Weight is a problem, but I have got used to that over the years.
Until you have used a DMF camera. not just for a few days but over period of months its difficult to understand without that experience what the difference is. It is a education and your style of photography changes. A pleasant one I might add.
You have to consider security and where you leave it, Insurance companies are very exact with use and cost a fortune.
Overhaul, DMF will not suit everyone , but if you are a bit "Old School", they are magic !!!

DenverShooter

My limited time using the Phase One IQ3 100 I was impressed with its dynamic range and of course resolution. Since I shot MF for 40+ years it was like going home..

Denver Shooter

spraynpray

@snakebunk @WestEndFoto: I do miss the DoF, and it isn't just a question of stopping down with FX as diffraction sets in earlier. I also miss using only the centre of FX lenses and getting much better performance from them at night and the better resolution of a 24mP DX - D850 is only 20mP in DX mode.

When I pixel-peep my best D7100 shots I see nothing wrong with them by any standard. The D750 I had beat it on noise and was a great camera. As I said somewhere else, my Ideal cameras would be the D750 sensor in the D850 body and another D850 with a D7200 sensor for macro.

I also think @Pistnbroke's 30mp DX wish would push the lenses too far.

WestEndFoto

Yes, diffraction does set in earlier, but if I bothered researching it, I bet that assuming no resolution constraints from the sensor, resolution after diffraction sets in would yield the same resolution for the same DOF regardless of format size. Something to ponder as I shoot the golden light in Malta.

spraynpray

WestEndFoto said:

Yes, diffraction does set in earlier, but if I bothered researching it, I bet that assuming no resolution constraints from the sensor, resolution after diffraction sets in would yield the same resolution for the same DOF regardless of format size. Something to ponder as I shoot the golden light in Malta.

I disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Factors_affecting_depth_of_field

snakebunk

@spraynpray: Thanks for the explanation. I understand that the slightly lower pixel density of the D850 compared to the D7100 can make a difference in some situations.

HankB

Is there really a practical difference between 24mp and 20mp (obviously, with ALL other factors equal)?

donaldejose

It could give you about 20% more pixels over the head of a far away bird, for example. An increase of about 15% in pixels covering a subject is said to be noticeable to the human eye. So I would say that in certain situations there could be a practical difference.