Phase One XF with new 100mp /16bit raw (700+mb tiff files)

2»

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Now that I have said what I said, I am thinking a D500 may be a wonderful addition as the high pixel count on 800mm (effectively 1200mm) may make the Indy cars at Road America really jump into my lap....LOL

    But, I am still buying my lotto ticket so I can get my Phase One and all the stuff... :|
    Msmoto, mod
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    As a bird photographer one of the main reasons to use a large sensor is that you can use a longer tele lense without risking to cut of a wing or a tail.
    For example, with an mf camera and an 800 mm lense I can fit an eagle and at the same time make a decent crop of a robin at the same distance. If I hade an fx camera the eagle wouldn't fit and if I hade a shorter lense the robin wouldn't be as nice.
    If at some point in the future it is possible for Nikon to make an mf mirrorless camera at the same price and equivalent pixel density as the current D810, I think there would be a market.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,069Moderator

    If at some point in the future it is possible for Nikon to make an mf mirrorless camera at the same price and equivalent pixel density as the current D810, I think there would be a market.
    How about adding the same size as a Nikon 1 to that list? =))
    Always learning.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member

    If at some point in the future it is possible for Nikon to make an mf mirrorless camera at the same price and equivalent pixel density as the current D810, I think there would be a market.
    How about adding the same size as a Nikon 1 to that list? =))
    No, it would be too small for my lenses :).

    But I really think that it will be possible to make mf mirrorless cameras that are smaller than today and a lot cheaper. Also the size of the raw files won't matter as much.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,195Member
    800mm MF lens? To photograph BIF? Are you the Incredible Hulk?
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    800mm MF lens? To photograph BIF? Are you the Incredible Hulk?
    Well, I can get a little red when I get angry, but never green:).

    I don't think I said anything about handholding an 800mm lense, but you touch on an interesting question: How much (if any) larger than FX would a Nikon MF tele lense be?

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    The diagonal of a Nikon full frame is about 43mm, on a Hasselblad about 61mm. Medium format is about like two full frame of a Nikon side by side.

    The only 800mm medium format lens I am aware of is the SMC Pentax-M* 67 800mm F6.7 ED [IF] from twenty yeas ago....manual focus. I suspect most of the market went to 35mm as sensor quality increased in the past few years and only a few folks are interested in a super tele for MF.

    Hand holding the big ones........ can be done if one's technique is good. But, can lead to exhaustion very quickly. Monopod almost always used, or gimbal head on big tripod.

    I suspect the person who can afford a Phase One can also afford the staff to go with it, i.e., someone to carry all the stuff around including the three RRS support systems.... :))
    Msmoto, mod
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    @Msmoto: But do you know how the sensor size affects the size of tele lenses? It is commonly said that a dx tele would not be smaller than an fx tele, so is an fx tele smaller than an mf tele?
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited February 2016
    The common statement is wrong, the DX/FX advantage gets smaller as the tele gets longer, but it is still there. The lens @msmoto refers to, the SMC Pentax-M* 67 800mm is 6,500g or 14.3 lbs. compare to Nikon 800mm 4,590g or 10.1 lbs. Imagine if it were a 5.6 like the Nikon!
    The real challenge will not be holding or manually focusing the rig, for BIF, it will be the fact that the Phase One XF 100mp back shoots a blazing 0.7 fps. Yes, that's less than one.
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 843Member
    Thanks for info! It makes sense. FX is probably a pretty good size for long tele photography then.
    When it comes to photography with shorter lenses, where you only do minor crops, I think FX image quality is more than enough for what I do.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Image circle coverag for the sensor size is one of many corrections in an optical design, as are corrections at different parts of the frame, size, weight, cost etc. These corrections are all interrelated.

    Having a smaller image circle to correct for allows the designer to optimize other factors, which could include size or weight if that is what they chose.

    One reason that modern lenses (particularly inexpensive ones) are sharper is that many designers have chosen to correct for geometric distortion digitally, and optimize other parts of the design.

    ... H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • rmprmp Posts: 518Member
    Where is the young, smart-ass, kid that is going to throw out all the old rules (laws of physics) and invent new technology to fit the 100MP into a v4? We need that kid!
    Robert M. Poston: D4, D810, V3, 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 80-400, 105 macro.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Well, after a couple days on the road.... back on the Forum, .....as rmp has asked, new technology....where is it? I suspect, as computers and materials improve, the future for MF is going to be about like an 11" x 14" Deardorf.... not often used. And some of us on NRF have used these in our past lives.

    One limitation of smaller format is the contamination factor...dirt, finger prints, other items in the optical path which are sort of fixed in the environment. And, for this reason, I think something like the full frame as we shoot it today may be the smallest we can go and manage the practical issues.

    The one exception to this may be in scientific applications where the envirionment is controlled.

    Oh well....
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,042Member
    edited February 2016
    Where is the young, smart-ass, kid that is going to throw out all the old rules (laws of physics) and invent new technology to fit the 100MP into a v4? We need that kid!
    On the off chance you are not kidding, let me say that the "laws of physics" have never been and never will be thrown out. However, old errors may be exposed and new understandings may be arrived at.

    And while you may cram 100mp or even a gigapixel onto a CX sensor (not sure about the physical contraints about that), I doubt a lens in CX will ever do much better than 5 or 10 megapixels.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,172Member
    100MP CX ... hmmm maybe .... but just using tech that we know currently exist we can see that we can at least have 42MP... and if we can push that slightly with tech that is patented but not quite in existence outside the lab then 84MP is possible with the current pixel density (of the 21MP CX in the J5.. ) so yes 100MP CX is not Science fiction...

    references ? see organic sensors, see panchromatic sensor, see nikon's refractive patent sensor... etc etc ...
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Havng Just been to the PhaseOne IQ3 100m pixel demo, It was interesting to hear from the technical director Prof. Niels Knudsen from PhaseOne, with regard to this 100 million pixel camera and how the CMOS censor could cope with the technical problems. A dynamic range of 15 stops and bulb time of one hour without any signs of noise. His demostrations at 400% magnification were very impressive.
    I asked why the ISO at a maximum of 12800 seemed quite low when compared to 35mm DSLR and the abilty of the Nikon D5 at 3.2 million ISO. His answer was they seeked supreme quality not the ability to take images at any inferior standard.
    I must admit I was taken back by his reply and thought he had curb-balled my question.
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,172Member
    LOL !! I am sure he enjoyed that .. ;-)
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited February 2016
    @paulr

    Sometimes we meet folks who are of the belief they are superior in some way to the rest of the human race. Often they are recognizable by a comment which may be interpreted as derogatory to another....... like in my post... :))
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    At the half wave of the longest visible light wavelength (I think about .7 microns pixel pitch), the sensor loses sensitivity at that wavelength and becomes a filter if wave theory applies.
    ... H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.