High ISO for Medium Format: Why?

<p>This may be a naive question, but I'm not sure I see the advantage of a CMOS sensor just announced for the new Hasselblad model. Why, for example, would high ISO be an advantage? Studio photographers control their light while landscape and architecture photographers shoot things that don't move. Who, then, will benefit from high ISO? Most uses that would are handheld, right? And isn't the advantage of a medium format sensor over a full-frame DSLR essentially lost when a camera is handheld? If the advantage of a CMOS sensor is not the higher ISO potental, perhaps it's the ability to multi-shoot for HDR. Just curious.</p>

Any landscape photographer who's ever had to wait for a lull in the wind to get their shot knows full well that motion in landscape is a frequent problem. Anything that increases the envelope of acceptable shooting parameters is going to find a use somewhere.

<p>because you don't have 100% light control in all situations and it is impossible in a few applications. cmos will also bring proper live view which is a big BIG + for tech/view cams.<br>

<br />let's just hope Hasselblad will not comprimise color integrity by tweaking CFA filters for low light gain.</p>

<p>There are a few street photographers that use medium format (I do occasionally) wedding photographers often have in the past also. The CMOS Hasselblad will appeal to a very large audience. </p>

<p>I would be skeptical of actually achieving something approaching 50 MP resolution in an SLR without live view to give me magnified focus check. Typical SLR-type phase-detection auto-focus often induces <em>some</em> amount of back-focus or front-focus, and even with split-prisms and other focusing aids, I'm not confident that I can manually focus super-precisely. When you're talking about that much sensor resolution (and hopefully, technique, lens, and sensor resolution), even a small focusing error can be the limiting factor.</p>

<p>As for landscapes and such--don't know about you, but I've shot some with exposures in the 20 to 30 s range. If wind had been an issue at those times, I would have really wanted to go from ISO 100 to ISO 400 or higher to cut the exposure times. The dynamic range and noise penalties can be an issue, though.</p>

 

<p>Live View. Especially with techical cameras.</p>

<p>Astrophotography. Film astrophotography with medium format trounced 35mm film; I know from experience. In the past 10 years those tables have been reversed with 35mm format CMOS. Now it's time for medium format to be king again (assuming the the recently announced medium format CMOS has noise levels on par with small-format CMOS). I personally cannot wait to see the results, and can only wish that I could afford to be on the frontline in acquiring them. It would be a mistake to assume that high ISO is purely the provenance of handholding - this is a case in point.</p>

<p>Sports and Action. Yes, why not? The detail and subject isolation afforded by medium format can be brought to bear on any subject matter. It can heighten the impact. Imagine an available light shot of a boxing match or a horse race over hurdles where every hair, every sweating pore, every tortured sinew is revealed in hitherto unavailable clarity and colour naturalism.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great answers. I learned something. And of course, live-view on a technical camera has got to beat laser distance determination followed by re-shoots. And wind, of course. (Even near dawn, I tend not to shoot for more than a second, using large format film, and so hadn't thought of long exposures.) My inclination is to be a bit skeptical of hand-holding a medium format camera and getting results significantly better than on a full-frame DSLR (unless extraordinarily narrow depth of field is truly critical) but I'm not speaking from experience, so I defer to those who know.</p>

<p>Don't forget marketing. Bigger, better, larger, zoomier, whatever. You don't try to sell something that is pretty much the same old thing with a couple of tweaks. Look at the old ads for the Edsel car. It was the same old stuff, a run-of-the-mill Ford of that era. Nothing terrible about the car as compared to the others of the era. But hugely over-hyped and came with a butt-ugly grill some people found vaguely obscene.</p>

<p>There are two ways to increase dynamic range.<br>

One is to increase the upper limit, the other to reduce noise in the low readings.<br>

I guess they want to use that extra sensitivity to try the latter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget marketing. Bigger, better, larger, zoomier, whatever. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well this was my suspicion when posting this thread; but the consensus seems to be otherwise.</p>

<p>There will come a time when High ISO capability is a God send no matter what format is involved. You can never anticipate when holding the camera for a shot will make a huge difference in quality.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>There has been a fad that has become practically a cliché to shoot water at long exposures rendering large expanses of water with chop, waves and just some surface motion into something more ethereal.</p>

<p>That is fine if one is using a time exposure, but some photographers want to capture each nuance of a wave in all its full glory. Think of how oriental (Japanese/Chinese) artists portray waves in their art, full of tiny detail within the whole. Some photographers of waves may seek that detail, and it takes a fast exposure to capture that detail, especially when using a long telephoto lens as one frequently must, and especially when the light is not strong such as early morning or late afternoon. In those cases high ISO would be a blessing, and MF with high ISO would be very important. </p>

<p>Even capturing wind patterns on water might be something that in low light would find itself better portrayed by high ISO with high shutter speeds, but one would still want the high resolution and detail expected of medium format, so I would expect in such circumstances that a high ISO medium format camera would be very helpful.</p>

<p>If left to think for even a few minutes, and comparing my landscape experience with the needs for high ISO, I expect I could think of dozens of instances in which high ISO might come in handy. How about photographing mountain wildlife at or before dawn with telephoto lenses? And so forth? Owen O'Meara next above said it very well: 'there will come a time when High ISO capability is a God send (sic) no mater what format is involved.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suspect there is more to this than just higher ISO. Wouldn't a CMOS medium format chip be cheaper to produce by taking advantage of the CMOS process lines available from foundries?</p>

<p>All things being equal, meaning outstanding color fidelity and all the image quality I've always found synonymous with Hasselblad, being able to extend ISO can only be a plus and there are always situations that benefit from it. Sometimes in low light you do not have lights available or do not want to use external lighting. Why wouldn't one want that capability if it was available?</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget marketing. Bigger, better, larger, zoomier, whatever.<br>

Well this was my suspicion when posting this thread; but the consensus seems to be otherwise.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Well why wouldn't you wait to you actually see some images from it before you dreamed up this whole rhetorical exercise? Why would anyone just assume its a marketing ploy? Especially without presenting any kind of facts to support it?

If this extends the usable ISO range (i.e. if the quality is still good at the high end), it extends what we can do with our tools. So why ever not?<br><br>I would worry more about quality in the 'normal' ISO range. CMOS is cheaper to make (still) than CCD. Which may be the reason for the move to CMOS. Longer battery life perhaps still too. But is it already as good? These things cost a medium sized fortune. And for that money, it better be good enough to justify every cent we'll have to pay.

<blockquote>

<p>Well why wouldn't you wait to you actually see some images from it before you dreamed up this whole rhetorical exercise? Why would anyone just assume its a marketing ploy? Especially without presenting any kind of facts to support it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently you are looking for an argument. I was just curious about the advantages of a CMOS sensor for a medium format camera as the obvious ones, at least to me, seemed less applicable to a camera on a tripod. There were lots of good answers and so I learned something (and perhaps other readers did too). Didn't have a position to "support" just a question. Didn't need to wait to see images either inasmuch as my question was about use not image quality. You need to calm down a bit.</p>

<p>Oh god, no not trying to start something, but if you're gonna speculate about the IQ of a camera system that nobody has seen a photograph from it what's the point? Did you not say you suspected it was basically marketing? And yes you did say you learned something from the answers, That's good But its very funny to hear someone questioning the value of having a camera with higher ISO abilities. I've never heard anyone say, I wish my digital camera did not have better higher ISO performance. So I guess I'm questioning the question in a way. </p>

<p>I live with ISO 50 with Velvia for landscape work. Low, late light conditions I live for too. So many times I've wished for extra stops for DOF, and to avoid reciprocity. Although I'm forced to continue to live with ISO 50, the extra stops are too expensive for me,<br>

The two most expensive things in life: Horsepower, and F- stops! Lol.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oh god, no not trying to start something, but if you're gonna speculate about the IQ of a camera system that nobody has seen a photograph from it what's the point?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all respect, you need to read more carefully. Nowhere did I question image quality. Why would I? I have no idea what the image quality of the sensor will be. (Others worried about CMOS versus CCD quality, but I said nothing about that.) My point was simply that I wondered what the uses for the camera would be. I don't know about you, but I shoot at low ISO when I can control the light, when there is lots of light, or when the subject does not move and I can put the camera on a tripod. So I wondered about the usefulness of a new sensor if the primary advantage is high ISO. The responses pointed out that, despite my experience, lots of folks would welcome a high quality higher ISO to avoid long exposures. I guess folks shoot in darker conditions than I'm used to or go for effects that I don't. So I learned something. But I can't for the life of me understand your objection to the question.</p>

<p>There's always an implicit relationship or concern about the effect of high iso on image quality. The test is where does high iso begin to effect and degrade several aspects of the image, chief one being noise. So kinda when ones speculates on the uses of high iso in a camera, the underlying issue is what does the image quality do under high iso conditions. So it really is a discussion of image quality in the final analysis. The main benefit of high iso is the ability of taking better clearer pictures under lower light. See what I mean? But no worries Lobalobo. Yes, a lot of people have looked to shoot in lower light. If one only shoots in controlled lighting situations or fully sufficient natural lighting, you're right, there's probably not much need nor any advantage to the high iso capability. But many people shoot in differing conditions as you've acknowledged. Also we can expand the conversation to think about what a MF size sensor with50 MP's could do for over all image quality which we will see when the thing gets released.</p>

<p>Well, I like to take pictures of black steam locomotives in poor light. I need to stop down for DOF, and a tripod isn't practical because I have to work around people that get in the way. So I guess it will have its uses.</p>

<p>Phase One has also announced a 50 meg 1.3X crop factor CMOS sensor DB. It is the same Sony sensor as the recently announced H5D/50 CMOS, albeit with their own in-camera approach applied ( just like with the Kodak or Dalsa sensors shared by Hasselblad and Phase One). If I recall, the price is a mere $33,000. To my knowledge, Hasselblad's pricing, including the H5D body, has not been revealed yet. </p>

<p>Phase One has released a few preliminary images, specifically a few at ISO 1600.</p>

<p>The notion of a CMOS based MFD back is supposedly to placate a growing number of possible customers that desire the functionality of the 35mm DSLRs they are familiar with. Faster shooting rates (limited by the camera itself), lower power demands, better LCD, possible Live View (evidently only when attached to a DSLR camera, but not to a view camera).</p>

<p>In a way it IS a marketing ploy … if expanding the appeal of MFD to more possible users is a "ploy". More likely, it is a survival tactic.</p>

<p>I'd speculate that the new 1.3X crop factor CMOS entries are aimed at well healed advanced amateurs and professionals in the fashion or people categories looking for a bit more versatility between using lighting and available light. The Landscape photography category isn't the only one out there.</p>

<p>Personally, I have zero interest in a CMOS based MFD solution … far too many CMOS cameras have a homogenized look and feel out of the camera … where the CCD counterparts display a distinctive gestalt … IMO and direct experience. </p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I have zero interest in a CMOS based MFD solution...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Each to their own. If I was doing photography that careerwise required and justified the expense of a digital MF camera, I would always be interested in what Hasselblad had to offer when evaluating a product before I just wrote it off. But that's just me. </p>

Well, the general thing is that if, say, you know how a big truck drives and behaves, you'll know that you needn't look at big trucks, any big truck, when you are looking for a car to win the Monaco F1 Grand Prix in. ;-)