digital backs

[david_distefano1]

<p>Question: now that nikon has come out with a 36mp camera at a $3,000 price point and taking direct aim at the lower end of the medium format digital backs such as the hasselblad 39mp back at $14,000. (yes the hasselblad has larger pixels but it is much poorer in low light and does not have near as many lenses to choose from) does anyone think that medium format digital back manufacturers will contemplate lowering their prices to stay competitive?</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>All thing being equal, photographers in medium format will not likely be looking at the Nikon offering just because it will be 36mp and 3k. Like full frame vs aps-c, there is a quality difference when your imaging is on a larger chip - it's not all about the mega pixels.</p>

<p>What it might do is prevent anyone who is thinking of moving up to a medium format.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Not all pixels are equal, so medium format backs will probably continue to be prevail in studio applications. Will they come down in price? Probably not. The resources and production levels are small. Will advanced amateurs save their nickels and dimes to buy used MF cameras and digital backs? Probably not if they can get the same resolution for 1/4th the cost and weight, and make use of the plethora of excellent 35mm lenses. The boost in performance for landscapes and portraits attained by elimination of the AA filter, plus the cost, flexibility and portability of the D-800E will change that game forever.</p>

<p>I had mostly resolved that the D3 would be my last camera (age and interests considered), but now I'm not so sure. My Hasselblad "travel" kit, which weighs 20# with a body, digital back and four lenses, mostly useless without another 8# of tripod, hasn't traveled by airplane in a couple of years now.</p>

[david_distefano1]

<p>Peter that was my point exactly. it's like comparing 35mm film to 2 1/4 film , but if new people do not come into medium format we will not see new technology except at the high end medium format domain. i have a hassalblad cfv-16 which i love and was considering cfv-39 but i need to reconsider, i just may go with the 4x5 for most landscapes and use the cfv-16 for intimate landscapes and d800e for everything else. i just can't see spending $14000-$17000 for 39mp-50mp. Granted the cfv-39 has pixels that are 41% larger but is that worth $11000?</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>My biggest concern would be the lenses -- I don't think most Nikon lenses can come close to handling 40mp. When I shot the D3, even the new lenses like the 24-70 G and 50/1.4G looked very poor in the edges, sometimes even stopped down to medium apertures. Maybe not everyone shares my concern, but the resolution wars are pretty much done. There is more than enough resolution for almost everyone. There are still some major differences though -- the color depth on medium format is better, the lenses are better (if only in the sense that they seem to have a better balance of distortion, aberration correction and overall look than most Canon or Nikon lenses...at least the zooms and low-end primes), they are not being pushed as hard, and there is a fundamental difference in the way that medium format lenses draw -- the longer focal lengths change the look. <br>

So while I will say the D800 looks incredible and will be a better choice for most photographers (as 35mm has long been), I don't think it is going to replace medium format any more than 35mm Tech Pan didn't replace medium format Tri-X. The value difference is always going to be a question for the individual...Hasselblads have always cost a lot more than Nikons, regardless of what "film" you shot in them. </p>

[uk]

<p>Stuart said : "I don't think it is going to replace medium format any more than 35mm Tech Pan didn't replace medium format Tri-X."<br /> Nice way of summarising it. <br /> I've always struggled to achieve the MF look I want from 35mm, including my M9's. I'm currently uploading an MF project on Flickr : and it's a joy to be using the bigger format with wonderful bokeh and fine detail.</p>

<p>I'm continually wondering about going to a CFV-50, I had the CFV-16, but pricing is not attractive compared with the H system. The only reason for wanting an H is the AF system, but it's a hell of an investment for just that feature, especially as I don't like the form.</p>

[richardsperry]

Explain how a 35mm pixel is different than a MF pixel, please?

 

In real application, not theory.

[peterbcarter]

<p>Given a sensor the same mp, you spread the pixels over a much larger area for the MF sensor. The farther the pixels are apart from each other, the less of a chance of a moire can result. Most MF backs have less physical filters in front of the chip, for this reason. Because the pixels are farther apart also reduces noise due to heat build up on the chip.</p>

<p>I am sure there are much more reasons than this. Much of the same reasons can be given for an aps-c vs fx sensor argument.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Explain how a 35mm pixel is different than a MF pixel, please?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you have the same pixel count (say, a 36MP 36x24mm Nikon, and a 39MP 48x36mm Phase One or Hasselblad), then the 35mm pixel has to be smaller.<br>

1) This reduces its sensitivity and dynamic range.<br>

2) It "stresses" the 35mm lenses more, as they have to both deliver lower aberrations (a smaller absolute spot size) <em>and </em>do so at a smaller (brighter) f-stop in order to keep their diffraction within the smaller pixel size.</p>

<p>In practice, since MF sensors use high-readnoise CCDs and 35mm sensors use low-readnoise CMOS, what I outlined in 1) is not as stark as it might be; the disparity in readnoise narrows the gap to little or nothing (but hopefully MF-sized CMOS will arrive sometime, and then the gap will be significant). But 2) is real, regardless of the sensor type.</p>

[gregory_king1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Given a sensor the same mp, you spread the pixels over a much larger area for the MF sensor. The farther the pixels are apart from each other, the less of a chance of a moire can result. Most MF backs have less physical filters in front of the chip, for this reason. Because the pixels are farther apart also reduces noise due to heat build up on the chip.<br>

I am sure there are much more reasons than this. Much of the same reasons can be given for an aps-c vs fx sensor argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter,<br>

I'm confused. Are you talking size of the pixel, or the gap BETWEEN pixels? I thought (all other things equal) higher resolution sensors has less chance for aliasing, since their frequency resolution is higher. This would be independent of sensor size, but it would mean in general putting the pixels further apart would seem in INCREASE moire tendency, right?<br>

In any case, AA filters DO seem to blur pixel resolution, resulting in a sharper looking image from a digital back without one. In reading a comment on the D800, however...one person said a proper AA filter will only result in sufficient "blur" to eliminate moire and not reduce resolution. In fact, he said that the perceived sharpness one gets without AA filter is actually fake...an artifact of the aliasing you aren't eliminating giving sharp edges where they don't really exist???</p>

<p>I have been meaning to do that test of MFDB vs APS-C (sorry, Ray...been lagging). Interestingly, I just added a MFT camera and expected to see a pixel resolution that was worse than my DSLR. Surprisingly, it seemed to be as sharp (or sharper!) at the pixel level than my MFDB, and definitely better than my DSLR.<br>

<br />Is that attributable to better (or just more) in-camera sharpening? I didn't see the halos you get from P&S cameras indicating too much sharpening, and the raw file looked pretty good too.</p>

<p>Is the kit zoom lens that good? I doubt it. It is cheap and even beat up (refurb camera).</p>

<p>Is it a softer AA filter? Perhaps, but surprising for a consumer-level camera. And one might expect the diffraction level of a slow lens on such small pixels to limit the resolution anyways.<br>

Or maybe it's all in my head. But I'd hope my head would prefer the pictures from a pro rig over a camera that cost 99% less. ;-)</p>

<p>I guess I have to add a third candidate to the test...althought it won't have the same lens.</p>

 

 

[david_distefano1]

<p>the cfv-39 has a pixel size of 6.88 while the d800 has a pixel size of 4.88 so even though the mp count is similar the light gathering per pixel is not. now the nikon d700 and the cfv-16 both had pixel size of 8.9.</p>

[sfcole]

<p><strong>"does anyone think that medium format digital back manufacturers will contemplate lowering their prices to stay competitive?"</strong><br>

Only if you were comparing apples to apples. Medium format manufacturers probably don't price their products with Canon or Nikon in mind. They compete against other medium format brands (the same can be said of Leica). Besides, in a couple of years, Canon will likely come out with 40mp. Professionals who chose to use Canon or Nikon over MF would already have had reason to do so anyway.<br>

It's likely that the vast majority of MF digital cameras stay in the studio or in situations with controlled lighting, and thus competition in the form of better low-light performance isn't much of an issue.<br>

I'd also point out that realistically, Nikon's sensor isn't in practice 36mp--it's about 30 because so many images end up being cropped to 4x5 or similar proportions. I find this especially true with most types of portraiture. Vertical portraits of 3:2 are almost always too tall, either reaching down too far towards the knees or leaving too much empty space above the head. 3:2 seems to work best for large groups spread out horizontally.</p>