| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2005 01:22:06 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 01:56:15 PM · #2 |
The KAF-8300 is currently being used in the Olympus E-300 and accounts for the camera's excellent image quality and very good dymanic range. The Oly E-1 also uses one of the Kodak sensors. But neither camera is considered to have high sensitivity at high ISO settings. However, the noise exhibited from these cameras is easy to clean up with NR software and has been compared favorably to film grain by those who are using them.
I guess Kodak is also aiming their products at the medium format manufacturers with sensors that have such large MP counts. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 02:05:57 PM · #3 |
The 39Mp chip is 50x39mm...not medium format, but bigger than FF 35mm.
Interesting. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 02:13:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 39Mp chip is 50x39mm...not medium format, but bigger than FF 35mm.
Interesting. |
So what kind of camera would use it? Maybe some kind of obscure NASA camera mounted on a space probe to take pictures of some far off galaxy? |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 02:56:26 PM · #5 |
| The James Webb Space Telescope (Hubble's Replacement) is supposed to have a 40 megapixel sensor. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:04:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 39Mp chip is 50x39mm...not medium format, but bigger than FF 35mm.
Interesting. |
So what kind of camera would use it? Maybe some kind of obscure NASA camera mounted on a space probe to take pictures of some far off galaxy? |
The PhaseOne P45 and P30 Medium Format Digital backs announced back in July of this year use the Kodak chips...
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:08:35 PM · #7 |
| The Hassselblad H1D uses a sensor that is 36.7 x 49mm, about the same size. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:12:06 PM · #8 |
So what is the definition of MF then? I thought it was 2x2 or 2.25 x 2.25 (inches), so that works out to 50.8 square or 57.15 square (mm).
Isn't all MF square? |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:23:10 PM · #9 |
| I had a scanner which allowed for a 6x7 cm size transparency. I don't know what kind of a camera that was supposed to come from though, perhaps 70 mm movie film? |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 04:24:38 PM · #10 |
I know some MF bodies (Mamiyas specifically) shot 4x5, 5x5 and 6x7 formats (and I think they had a 6x6 as well).
I thought the designation of MF referred to the size being larger than 35mm media but smaller than large format.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 04:31:41 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
I know some MF bodies (Mamiyas specifically) shot 4x5, 5x5 and 6x7 formats (and I think they had a 6x6 as well).
I thought the designation of MF referred to the size being larger than 35mm media but smaller than large format. |
Yeah, I thought it was all roll film cameras bigger than 35mm, until you got to a 4x5 inch view camera with sheet film.
Message edited by author 2005-10-21 16:32:31. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 04:45:52 PM · #12 |
| Since 120 and 220 film for MF cameras is always 6 cm wide; I always used that dimension as method to determine what was MF. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 08:12:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The James Webb Space Telescope (Hubble's Replacement) is supposed to have a 40 megapixel sensor. |
Nothing will ever take the place of the Hubble. Better to call the JWST the next-generation Hubble.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 09:24:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Nothing will ever take the place of the Hubble. Better to call the JWST the next-generation Hubble. |
As incredible as Hubble is (was), it was based almost entirely on late 70's and early 80's technology, and was severely handicapped by NASA requirements of the time that it be built for launch in the shuttle's cargo bay, and the philosophically misguided requirement that it be serviceable by the shuttle on a regular basis. The result was a boondoggle that ended up costing countless billions of dollars over the years, for a mission that easily could have been run for much less with a 'scope that was launched with an expendable vehicle and built to last without servicing (witness the Mars Global Surveyor, orbiting Mars since '97 with NO servicing).
Unfettered by NASA's tunnel vision of the 80's Shuttle-centric philosophy, the new space telescope will likely be built right the first time (Hubble was NOT) and built to last (ditto). |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 09:31:45 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Isn't all MF square? |
Medium format is just roll film. THe most popular formats are 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 (fuji & roll film cameras ), 6x9, 6x12 & 6x17. |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 10:40:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
I know some MF bodies (Mamiyas specifically) shot 4x5, 5x5 and 6x7 formats (and I think they had a 6x6 as well).
I thought the designation of MF referred to the size being larger than 35mm media but smaller than large format. |
MF film is 6 cm wide and is either 120 or 220, with the difference being 220 is twice as long as 120, so you get more shots. I have never heard of 4x5cm or 5x5cm film format. There is 4x5 in format, but that is in sheets and is used in view cameras. Typical MF aspect ratios are 6x4.5cm (usually Pentax MF SLRs), 6x6cm (Hasselblads), 6x7cm (Mamiya), 6x8cm, 6x9cm, 6x12cm and 6x17(Fuji Panoramic). Other camera manufacturers may have those same aspect ratios. There may be other aspect ratios as well, but I think that's about it.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 09:33:44 AM EDT.
