80meg in a Camera?

[Andrew1]

What's going to be the limit?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/n...a-back-series/

[Colin Southern]

Call me old, call me a fool ... but I thought I'd list a couple of specs here:

Megapixels
Canon 1Dx: More than sufficient
Leaf Credo 80: More than sufficient

Frames per second
Canon 1Dx: up to 14
Leaf Credo 80: up to 0.7

ISO
Canon 1Dx: 50 to 204,800
Leaf Credo 80: 35 to 800

Dynamic Range:
Canon 1Dx: Not sure, but probably around 13 to 14 stops
Leaf Credo 80: 12.5 stops


Canon 1Dx: $6700
Leaf Credo 80: $38,995

Can someone tell me why anyone would want to buy the Leaf Credo 80?

PS: Canon have already done 120MP (and that was almost 2 years ago!)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20397...ge_sensor.html

[Manfred M]

Canon 1Dx = 24mm x 36mm = 865 sq mm
Leaf Credo = 45mm x 60mm = 2700 sq mm

Sensor on Leaf Credo is 3.125 larger than Canon DSLR full frame.

Size matters....

[Colin Southern]

Canon 1Dx = 24mm x 36mm = 865 sq mm
Leaf Credo = 45mm x 60mm = 2700 sq mm

Sensor on Leaf Credo is 3.125 larger than Canon DSLR full frame.

Size matters....

Sure - I appreciate that - but what's that going to do for my images?

The size of the FPS, ISO, DR matter too -- and in most of those areas it ain't even close.

In this day and age - I'm honestly struggling to see the value in an albeit MF camera that has waaaaaaay lousier specs in the areas that "matter most" - is a zillion times more expensive - and the only thing it appears to excel at is something that (arguably perhaps) just isn't needed.

[rpcrowe]

In the days of 35mm film, I shot with medium format equipment when I wanted/needed large blowups on a consistant basis. IMO, the 35mm negative film just didn't have the quality that I wanted, especially for weddings for which I would frequently sell great sized enlargements. However, towards the end of my civilian pro career, I would shoot 6x6cm color negative film for the pre-ceremony, ceremony and post ceremony coverage and would use a Canon A-1 and an AE-1 for the reception shots. I could get away with that because customers virtually never purchased prints larger than 8x10 inches of reception related images.

However, IMO, full frame digital is far superior to the same size color negative film. I would have no problems shooting the entire wedding with a full frame camera. Heck, if I had to; I would be comfortable shooting a wedding with my 1.6x gear.

I think that full frame digital fills the niche in photography that medium format film once did. I would not need a Leaf...

If I were shooting landscapes and knew that I would want a really-really big blow up of one of my images; I would consider "super resolution" photography using "Supe Acute".

BTW: The book Photographic Multishot Techniques by Juergen and Rainer Gulbins covers the above technique as well as HDR, Extended Depth of Field, and various Pano Techniques...

[Manfred M]

Sure - I appreciate that - but what's that going to do for my images?

The size of the FPS, ISO, DR matter too -- and in most of those areas it ain't even close.

In this day and age - I'm honestly struggling to see the value in an albeit MF camera that has waaaaaaay lousier specs in the areas that "matter most" - is a zillion times more expensive - and the only thing it appears to excel at is something that (arguably perhaps) just isn't needed.

For casual shooting and most pro work I agree with you. For high end landscape, architecture and studio work, I suspect there is still a market niche for these medium format (MF) cameras.

The dynamic range is about the same as what you quote for the 1Dx, I rarely shoot burst, so don't care about the fps and I tend to shoot near the bottom of the ISO range (which is the only place one gets the high DR anyways). Most of my shooting can be handled quite well by my DSLR, but I could just as well use a medium format if I wanted to crazy huge prints.

I remeber my grad and wedding portraints being done with a MF camera; but frankly MF has always been a niche product, just like view cameras (I remember getting my first passport photo taken with a view camera). On the other hand full-frame sensor cameras were high end niche products about a generation or so ago. Full frame sensors are getting close to the point where higher MP count will be meaningless; so the only place to go with high end is to start bringing down the price of medium format if you want higher resolution.

When I look at a crude measure like $/MP; you are paying about $370/MP for the 1Dx and $488/MP on the Credo. Not too shabby when one considers the production volumes we are looking at here.

But you are right, is it needed? For most folks the answer will be NO!

[Dave Humphries]

No one has mentioned the need for lenses with a sufficient level of performance - is that not an issue?

With such high-resolution images it would be possible to zoom and crop parts of the picture while still maintaining a high resolution. If used for video, a portion of the image just one sixtieth the size of the original could be extracted but still kept at high-definition.

I was stunned (ok, perhaps not ) that the PCWorld article implied that a lens would be able to resolve well enough detail for post shooting panning of an HD image around a wider angle of view shot.

However, IMO, full frame digital is far superior to the same size color negative film.

If digital really is much better than film for a given frame size, it implies that somewhere in the film negative processing chain, a sub standard lens (or media) was being used, perhaps the enlarger when printing(?). Either that, or all film generation camera lenses (even MF) are going to be found lacking when used on these 40, 60 or 80 MP digital backs.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

It is also interesting that none of these new sensors are actually what I'd call true "645" size; i.e. they're not 6 x 4.5 cm. For comparison; not 60 x 45mm - they range from 44 x 33mm to 54 x 40mm. So there is going to be a degree of 'crop factor' to them when thinking of angles of view compared to a film back, unless I'm mistaken (always possble).

Cheers,

[KCBrecks]

What's going to be the limit? Who knows, no-one. This is an electronics matter and you only have to look at what has happened elsewhere in the industry to see there isn't a limit. I had a lovely little computer running at 8Mhz, 8086 chip, with 640k RAM and a 40Mb hard disk in 1992. It did everything I wanted (I didn't have a digital camera in those days though.) It cost about £640 I seem to remember, with a 14" colour monitor. The last one I built had a 4x 2.8Ghz 64bit processor chip, 4Gb RAM and a 1000Gb hard disk and that is now out of date, just about. Other than the photographic things the current computer does more or less what the earlier one did but looks prettier. Moore's law still applies, so in 18 months time there will be a 160Mb sensor, probably cheaper than the current one.

The first digital camera I bought, in 1998 I think, was a Sony Mavica with an 800K sensor and stored the pictures on a floppy disk. It cost just under £700. It was used on a building site for identification pictures and before and after shots. The last 2 cameras I bought, around Christmas and the New Year were 8.3 and 10 mega pixels for £38 and £120, both brand new, both with 3x zoom lenses and the second a DSLR with a 300mm zoom lens as well (honestly and not off the back of a lorry). The Mavica was getting good reviews as were the Kodak and Canon I just bought, but the pictures are so very different.

What is the limit? There isn't one - monitors will get better, storage media will get faster and smaller, printers will have smaller dot sizes. Computers will be faster, software will be smarter and photographers will still look through a viewfinder and press a button when they think there is something to take a picture of.

It's going to be as exciting a ride as it has been so far. Unfortunately some of us will have fallen out of our saddles along the way. but we will be taking some good, bad and awful pictures as we have always done.

[Scott Stephen]

Thirty-eight THOUSAND dollars??? Oooof! Not to mention that you would have to somehow store all those insanely big photo files somewhere! Can you just plug a portable hard drive into the thing and let it dangle? Wow.

[JonathanC]

You could always cheat. Why not print a 10" X 8" and then scan it at 1200DPI? 115 MP done easily and saving thousands of beer vouchers.

[Starbuck]

No one has mentioned the need for lenses with a sufficient level of performance - is that not an issue?



I was stunned (ok, perhaps not ) that the PCWorld article implied that a lens would be able to resolve well enough detail for post shooting panning of an HD image around a wider angle of view shot.

It is also interesting that none of these new sensors are actually what I'd call true "645" size; i.e. they're not 6 x 4.5 cm. For comparison; not 60 x 45mm - they range from 44 x 33mm to 54 x 40mm. So there is going to be a degree of 'crop factor' to them when thinking of angles of view compared to a film back, unless I'm mistaken (always possble).

Cheers,

Yes, it is true that none of the medium format cameras are 6 x 4.5, but neither was film. The term 6 x 4.5 was a general term and each camera size was different. I just measured an old Hasselblad film back and it was certainly not 6 x 4.5. So, the crop factor fr the large digital backs is almost the exact same size as the film backs. BTW, I saw that one of the full frame Nikons was also .1 mm less than the full 24 x 36 mm of film.

[Starbuck]

Sure - I appreciate that - but what's that going to do for my images?

In this day and age - I'm honestly struggling to see the value in an albeit MF camera that has waaaaaaay lousier specs in the areas that "matter most" - is a zillion times more expensive - and the only thing it appears to excel at is something that (arguably perhaps) just isn't needed.

If you are shooting large format then you can forget about using your Nikons or Canons. If you are copying an ancient manuscript or are reproducing the Mona Lisa, you turn to medium format. If you shoot fashion and the details of the fabric is important, you shoot medium format. Aerial photography is another area where medium format is important. It is hard to compare medium format to DSLR because you are comparing two items that share the name "camera" but have different purposes. yes, you are on an assignment and you need some night shots or you need a camera to shoot like a machine gun, you use the DSLR. But during the day, when you want to blow your client away, you shoot medium format. they both have an important role to play in our lives.

[Manfred M]

Thirty-eight THOUSAND dollars??? Oooof! Not to mention that you would have to somehow store all those insanely big photo files somewhere! Can you just plug a portable hard drive into the thing and let it dangle? Wow.

I just installed a 4TB hard drive in my desktop computer. Storage is not an issue unless one insists on keep all your images on a laptop or tablet.

[Colin Southern]

For casual shooting and most pro work I agree with you. For high end landscape, architecture and studio work, I suspect there is still a market niche for these medium format (MF) cameras.

I'm wondering if there's a distinction between "needing one" and "thinking they need one" - ie is it really a case of "the emperor has no clothes"?

but I could just as well use a medium format if I wanted to crazy huge prints.

Except that print density is a square law thing; for a 1Ds3, an extra $30k+ only just gets the print to double the size, and nobody views a big print that close anyway.

[Manfred M]

I'm wondering if there's a distinction between "needing one" and "thinking they need one" - ie is it really a case of "the emperor has no clothes"?

Except that print density is a square law thing; for a 1Ds3, an extra $30k+ only just gets the print to double the size, and nobody views a big print that close anyway.

I made a similar comment to a friend who shoots with a 4x5 view camera. It is a niche product, just like the cars that Ferrari puts out, or the watches Rolex puts out. The relationship between incremental cost and value is not linear. On the other hand, the same can be said for the gear that Canon and Nikon put out. The quality / price difference between the entry level camera and the top of the line is not linear either...

[Shadowman]

What's going to be the limit?

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/n...a-back-series/

The limit will be reached when market shares decline. A few years (around 2008-2009) ago the top three camera manufacturers said that they would no longer put out heavy megapixel cameras, they were going to concentrate their efforts on producing good quality systems with features that mattered most to the consumer. That lasted until the number four or five manufacturer put out a camera with mega megapixels, grabbed a bit more market share and the war of MP cameras was on again.

[Colin Southern]

A few years (around 2008-2009) ago the top three camera manufacturers said that they would no longer put out heavy megapixel cameras, they were going to concentrate their efforts on producing good quality systems

Ah - so image quality is inversely proportional to the number of MP - I've suspected this for a long time!

[Colin Southern]

I made a similar comment to a friend who shoots with a 4x5 view camera. It is a niche product, just like the cars that Ferrari puts out, or the watches Rolex puts out. The relationship between incremental cost and value is not linear. On the other hand, the same can be said for the gear that Canon and Nikon put out. The quality / price difference between the entry level camera and the top of the line is not linear either...

Oh I agree, I do think it's something based on perceived need rather than actual need though.

[Scott Stephen]

I just installed a 4TB hard drive in my desktop computer. Storage is not an issue unless one insists on keep all your images on a laptop or tablet.

I hope you have a portable HD to back it all up on. Having everything on just your one desktop computer may very easily end badly.

I have lately stopped just "dumping" everything onto the HD. Now I take the time to delete the bad shots. Still. At 80 megs, it would use up storage like 4.5X faster.

[Shadowman]

Ah - so image quality is inversely proportional to the number of MP - I've suspected this for a long time!

Here's an article that justified the decision making process. What changed in four years?

http://www.mondaynote.com/2009/08/23...egapixel-wars/