future of MF digital

[michaelnotar]

with the announcement of the new canon DSLRs they are now 14bit devices, the same as a MF back, and a replacement to the 1ds2 seems to give MF a run for its money. my P25 aint looking so good.

so what benefits are left for a MF back. i love mine, but dont use it often.

[Rob Martin]

so many so quick to Judge.
MF is quite different. 1Ds3 won't be taking some of the images you'll get with your system.
Plus no one has any idea of IQ etc.

[michaelnotar]

what do you mean with IQ? intelligent quotiant?

in one hand physics will limit the noise and resolving power of lenses as MP count explodes, but software seems to conteract it.

also i have heard canon's current 12bit raw files are really more like 8-10bit.
while phase one backs are spec'd at 16bit, i know from a rep that they are actually 14bit, but perhaps thats a true 14bit capture.

comparing DSLRs to MF, all the SLRs are adding microlenses, which are also on some of the MF backs, a technology that seems to soften images and prevent lens movents with LF. so perhaps this will continue to keep the gap between DSLR and MF backs wide.

[Iversen]

Hi Rob.

You are so right.

The difference between a DSLR and the MF is as it allways have been. Quality. Quality. Quality.

Great quality difference, as it was when we did use film. A SLR is the right tool for one kind off job, the MF for another and the 4x5" or 8x10" for the highend job. And to day the 4x5" or 8x10" is named PhaseOne P45+ on a Mamiya RZ or a step better. Sinar with Schneider Digitar or the two dgital lenses from Rodenstock. So simple can it be said.

Off course the new Canon 21Mpix is a step up....for Canon, but I think that the Canon lenses is working on their absolute limit......if they can do it at all. Maybee some new high end Canon lenses can do it ;-)

More to say in that case, Gents?

[David_Buzzard]

It's certainly going to take a major chunk of the MF market out, but it won't kill it. There will always be a need for super resolving cameras, especially in fashion and commercial product photography. If you're going to take a photo of a tube of lipstick, blow it up to 8x6 feet, and then put it in a back lit display at a couple of hundred department stores, you want the most resolution you can possibly get.

For most needs, the 1Ds MkII had more than enough resolution. I don't see the rush that happened when they went from the 1Ds to the 1Ds MKII. It's not that much of a jump in resolution, and the studio and portrait guys it's aimed at don't need the hopped up autofocus and live view features as much as the news and sports photographers that 1D is aimed at.

David Buzzard's Technical Blog

[Martin_Kristiansen]

I use a 1DS MKII and will upgrade to the MKIII. I am at the same time purchasing a Leaf Aptus 75 to mount on a Linhof. The latter system does without doubt give better quality but what of the effect of using movements? I think that makes a big difference. The back on a view camera allows me to do things that I cant do on the Canon even with the TS lenses. Gives me an edge over my competition for sure

[DougAxford]

Originally Posted by Martin_Kristiansen

but what of the effect of using movements?

Isn't Adobe pretty well covering that with improving perspective controls on each new release. It's actually more of a question than a statement. I was taught on a 4x5 so lots of experience on those, but haven't used perspective controls for decades.

My personal take on the MF issue, which I agonized over a decade ago is that WE can see the difference in an image, but almost no one else can - or cares. Some art directors want low quality to create a unique look aka Holga.

Doug

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying