alexo

<p>Fantastic! There's an incredible amount of detail within your crop and given it's such a small area of the overall image, the resolution is out of this world! I can certainly see how a beautiful 30x40" print can be produced with even a 36mp 810. The lenses hold up beautifully. Awesome!</p>

<p>I use various FD lenses reverse mounted on my FD auto bellows with 5D MkII. I find the setup quite good. No sharpness, color rendering, or distortion issues. I'm quite happy with the rig. </p>

<p>That's just great! Thanks, Landrum. I see the the color fringing as being a bigger issue with the lens than resolution. However, color fringing will always be an issue regardless of the camera's resolution.<br /><br />I think you're right 100% that given the test shots you've posted using the 36mp Nikon, the current set of lenses, even inexpensive ones should be able to do the job.</p> <p>Thank you! </p>

<p>That's just incredible! This is the type of detail you'd get from med format film. I used to have two sets of systems when I shot film: I had the Canon FD for my walk around, portable type of photography and then I had the Mamiya 645 and Mamiya C220 for studio and macro related work. Even though it cost quite a bit of money to buy the cameras and lenses, and accessories, it was NOTHING compared to springing for $40k for a digital back, which is bound to be obsolete 5 years from now. <br /><br />So, I'm happy to see that perhaps I won't need to keep 2 systems, I won't have to spend a small fortune on super expensive lenses and that for around $4k, I'll be able to get a camera that will probably last me 10-15 years, while still maintaining my current set of lenses! Super!</p>

<p>NICE! That's good to know. That photo is tack sharp with nice colors and contrast. It's always good to know that you don't have to spend a fortune on super expensive lenses, that a decent lens will give you great results.</p>

<p>David,<br /><br />That's fantastic! I wish I could see those for myself. Why did you need to have prints that big? Did you exhibit? They must have blown everyone away.<br /><br />Landrum,<br /><br />When I first read the announcement that Canon was going to come out with a high res 5D, I thought that was going to be a gimmick in order to sell ultra expensive lenses to folks who already bought the current set of ultra expensive lenses. Upon further investigation, I'm beginning to think that the 5Ds will actually be a useful tool, a camera that will allow photographers to stay within the Canon system, rather than go through the huge expense of medium format. Sort of like MF on a budget. I hope that the new camera delivers and that even the current set of lenses will be able to meet the challenge of 50mp on a 24x36 format</p>

<p>Wow! 50"! That's below 200dpi. How did they look? I thought my 20x30 was on the borderline and I figured that the 5ds would be good for about 30x45". </p>

<p>I had a jaw dropping experience when I first got my Canon 5DII. It was my first digital SLR (I shot film before then) I thought it was as sharp as a tack, the resolution was incredible and I've made 20x30 inch prints with it, although I thought that was pushing it just a touch. More importantly, the dynamic range and the color fidelity were top notch. <br /><br />I was afraid that the introduction of 5Ds would mean just another salvo in the pixel wars at the expense of color fidelity, dynamic range and tonality. However, having seen the comparisons, as imperfect as they are, I figure that the 5Ds would be just what the doctor ordered so that I wouldn't feel that a 20x30" print is "pushing it a bit".<br /><br />Granted, it's not often that one finds the need to print that large, but I had a few exhibitions and I always thought that I could make a bigger impact with bigger prints.</p>

<p>I'm not concerned about the high ISO dynamic range because I don't do a lot of low light photography. So, most of the discussion here revolves around the low ISO.<br /><br />From what I could see, the current set of lenses do ok with 36mp, so I expect they'll be ok with 50 as well, since as you said, the difference between 36 and 50 is less than the difference between 24 and 36mp. <br /><br />I thought that given that Canon is trying to pack 50mp onto a 24x36mm sensor, the pixel density would be great enough to impact the dynamic range. From what I can see, that's probably not going to be the case.<br /><br />The Phase I IQ80 seems the way to go, as there seems to be an appreciable difference in image quality as compared to Nikon 810, Canon 5d III and Pentax 645z. Alas, it costs a small fortune, so that's not in the cards.<br /><br />So, from what I've been able to gather, it seems that 5dS should be a good camera for those needing to print large, exhibition quality prints.</p>

<p>Just checked out DPreview and looked at the RAW comparisons among Phase 1 IQ180 digital back, Nikon 810, Pentax 645Z and Canon 5D MKII and III<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=pentax_645z&attr13_1=nikon_d810&attr13_2=phaseone_iq180&attr13_3=sony_a7r&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=35&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0<br /><br />From what I can see, there is some gain from greater resolution. I don't see much dynamic range penalty from Nikon 810 vs the lower res Canons. Pentax 645z doesn't seem to be worth the money based on the sample images. So, all of this leads me to believe that the Canon 5dS may wind up to be a good camera to get if 50mp is required and there doesn't seem to be a payoff to going to a med format sensor unless it's a true 645.<br /><br />Any thoughts?</p>

<p>If the higher pixel count has greater dynamic range, how does pixel size play into that? Medium format backs may have the same 50mp, but their pixel density and pixel size is much different. My understanding is that their dynamic range is incredible as well. </p>

<p>The problem, as I see it, with comparing full frame lenses on a 7d2 and trying to extrapolate pixel resolution based on pixel density is that the full frame lenses are judged based on the sweet spot of their image circle. Naturally, the results should be better.<br /><br />What about loss in dynamic range and color fidelity due to greater pixel density (if any)? I can't wait for the cameras to come out and to see tests performed using the currently available lenses. As much as I am tempted by the possibility of big prints at 300 dpi, I'm afraid that it will fall short due to the pushing of the lens limits (although I hope that doesn't happen. I really want to be able to shoot ultra high res with a full frame format, rather than going to medium format.</p>

<p>I haven't seen anything in terms of definitively answering these questions, especially concerning the pixel density. Things move fast on the Internet and I may indeed be late in asking these questions, but as it happens, there are other things in life that take priority over newly announced photographic gear.<br /><br />Re: Kodachrome, I fail to see the connection as far as lens resolution. I may be missing something here.</p>

<p>I had heard about Canon introducing the new 50mp camera models. The potential to enlarge an image to 20x30 at 300 dpi is very enticing. However, I'm wondering about whether the current line of lenses have enough resolving power to produce 50mp or close images (assuming all the other factors are at or near ideal levels). I wonder if this is just a way to get everyone to run out and get a new set of lenses that will cost a small fortune, but that will have the resolving power to take advantage of the pixel count.<br> <br />Furthermore, whereas Canon claims pixel density to be equal of 7dII, isn't the whole point of a full frame camera to have larger pixels? Would image quality suffer due to the pixel size? What about color fidelity and dynamic range? Is that going to suffer?<br> <br />Any other thoughts?</p> <p>Thanks</p>