Interesting.... - DPChallenge Forums

04/15/2003 07:41:27 PM · #1

Phase One H 25

Anyone want a 22 megapixel camera with 12 F stop dynamic range (48 bit per color?) :)

Message edited by author 2003-04-15 19:41:39.

bruster54

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6

04/15/2003 07:43:25 PM · #2

What...ONLY $27,000! So much camera for the price!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/15/2003 07:48:27 PM · #3

you still haven't counted the actual CAMERA + the lenses yet (that's just the camera back, it's medium format)

Originally posted by bruster54:

What...ONLY $27,000! So much camera for the price!

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

04/15/2003 07:48:54 PM · #4

good thing I have room on my credit card! woo hoo! blue ribbons here I come!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/15/2003 09:36:49 PM · #5

Originally posted by Anachronite:

good thing I have room on my credit card! woo hoo! blue ribbons here I come!

Yeah, it will really make a difference on those 640x480 images...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/16/2003 01:14:29 AM · #6

Actually, you'd be surprised what a difference it makes in terms of image quality with good sensor + good lenses. This is why Canon D30 with 3 megapixels can easily outperform a 5 megapixel prosumer camera. The color rendition, contrast, etc. are a huge step.

The camera shows 12 F stops, that's a lot of contrast info to play with. Normal film only contains 4 F stops and most digicams are under 5-6 F stops.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
good thing I have room on my credit card! woo hoo! blue ribbons here I come!

Yeah, it will really make a difference on those 640x480 images...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/16/2003 01:48:26 AM · #7

I appreciate the information, even if I may not be able to appreciate the actual difference in the images...I'll extract my tongue from my cheek now and get back to photography.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/16/2003 02:39:55 AM · #8

Originally posted by paganini:

Phase One H 25

Anyone want a 22 megapixel camera with 12 F stop dynamic range (48 bit per color?) :)

I was reading some stuff on photo.net suggesting that the 1Ds sensor was out-resolving even L-lenses. You'd need a pretty damn good lens to justify 22 megapixels. I guess with the medium format you're going to need a lot just to cover the 4x5 but damn...22 megapixels? We're talking billboards before you lose quality.

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

04/16/2003 03:31:41 AM · #9

Yes 1Ds exceeds the 35 mm format on a pixel count basis, but i am not sure about true resolution.

Basically you have 50 lines per mm on 35 mm film (typically, slide films might be lower), so that means 100 pixels per mm (2 pixel = one line), or about 8 megapixels total (36 x 24 mm, so 3600 x 2400 pixels).

Whether it exceeds the resolution has yet to be seen -- 1Ds has 11 megapixels, yes, however, it really only has about 4 megapixels of true RGB pixels and the results are "interpolated" which results in softness of the image. In order to compare to film you really need about 8*3, or 24 million sensors (a sensor is a color in the Bayes CCD format), or 8 megapixels of Foveon sensor to truly qualify "film resolution". Otherwise you will have to interpolate and the need for nonlinear processing, no matter what you do, will add artifacts to the image itself. I have seen some Sigma SD9 Foveon samples and they ARE impressive!! (The problem? YOu have to use Sigma lenses.... eeeeek)

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Originally posted by paganini:
Phase One H 25

Anyone want a 22 megapixel camera with 12 F stop dynamic range (48 bit per color?) :)

I was reading some stuff on photo.net suggesting that the 1Ds sensor was out-resolving even L-lenses. You'd need a pretty damn good lens to justify 22 megapixels. I guess with the medium format you're going to need a lot just to cover the 4x5 but damn...22 megapixels? We're talking billboards before you lose quality.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

04/16/2003 05:05:24 AM · #10

Serious question: What's wrong with Sigma lenses? I have a low-end one on my SLR camera that I'm really happy with. Are they not well thought of?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/16/2003 05:18:52 AM · #11

Originally posted by paganini:

When I was imaging slides from digital files we imaged the film (AGFAchrome 100) at either 4000 or 8000 lines per inch -- I was informed it was pointless to go higher since a pixel would then be smaller than the film grain...8000x12,000 pixels is a pretty big file.

I don't there will ever be a resolution to the resolution (film vs. digital) argument -- the answer will be if your digital image gives an acceptable image, then it's big enough...

Davenit

Canon EOS-1D

04/16/2003 06:14:01 AM · #12

Paganini wrote "(The problem? YOu have to use Sigma lenses.... eeeeek)

And that is bad?... //www.pbase.com/davenit/land and all other photos shot with Sigma lenses...

Pro's are lining up for this back. Throw on the new Hassy H1 for around 6. Kodak has a new 25MP back for about 16G. You can have true MF resolution for around 25G by the time you are done. For a pro it is like a dream come true...

Dave

Message edited by author 2003-04-16 06:17:09.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/16/2003 07:58:52 AM · #13

Certain ones are thought of very highly. There is, apparently, more inconsistency in quality amongst the ranges of the 3rd party lens makers than the OEM's (ie Canon and Nikon), but their best lenses are very competitive, and offer tremendous value, as they are usually priced lower.

Originally posted by Kavey:

Serious question: What's wrong with Sigma lenses? I have a low-end one on my SLR camera that I'm really happy with. Are they not well thought of?

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/16/2003 08:00:14 AM · #14

Beautiful stuff. Love the D30 color. Just goes to show it's the person behind the camera ;).

Originally posted by Davenit:

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

04/16/2003 09:24:37 AM · #15

Originally posted by Kavey:

Serious question: What's wrong with Sigma lenses? I have a low-end one on my SLR camera that I'm really happy with. Are they not well thought of?

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

Hmmmm... I have the Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical Macro AF Lens with a Minolta fitting.

I love it.

Message edited by author 2003-04-16 09:25:30.

04/16/2003 11:04:17 AM · #16

I'd be surprised if it was taken with a zoom or at a wide angle. Sigmas are notoriously famous for their CA problems. But primes are fine, zooms however there is a huge difference when the images are at the original resolution. Ask the guys who own a 1Ds and see which lenses they prefer, as at 11 megapixels they tend to see every little artifacts.

Originally posted by Davenit:

04/16/2003 11:26:19 AM · #17

That's true, but try it with a camera like G2, the color rendition and resolution and contrast won't be nearly as good as the D30, even though G2 supposedly have 1 megapixels more. I have found the G2 does really well with semi-macro range work, but at wide angle or in nature, its CA (particularly shots of leaves, tend to leave a smudge of blue tint at the edges) shows its true "color" :)

(not to mention the horrible barrel distortion at wide angle)

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

Beautiful stuff. Love the D30 color. Just goes to show it's the person behind the camera ;).

Originally posted by Davenit:
Paganini wrote "(The problem? YOu have to use Sigma lenses.... eeeeek)

And that is bad?... //www.pbase.com/davenit/land and all other photos shot with Sigma lenses...

Pro's are lining up for this back. Throw on the new Hassy H1 for around 6. Kodak has a new 25MP back for about 16G. You can have true MF resolution for around 25G by the time you are done. For a pro it is like a dream come true...

Dave

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/16/2003 11:39:27 AM · #18

According to the latest issue of Popular Photography magazine the 1Ds is on par with ISO 400 speed film and slightly below ISO 100 and 200 film in absolute resolution. I am not sure the exact film they were using, would have to go back and reread. They rated the Kodak Pro 14n as being slightly better than ISO 400 film for absolute resolution. From reading the article I got the impression that they felt that overall image quality was better than film up to ISO 400 and film was still superior for faster than ISO 400. I donâ��t know how much real difference you would see between an image taken using the H1 and a 1Ds at 640x480 resolution, but I do believe there is a noticeable difference between a shot taken from a 1D and a 1Ds scaled down to 640x480 if it is done properly.

Greg

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/16/2003 11:50:55 AM · #19

It's all about the depth of field available. You just can't get the control with a 35mm-sized frame that you can from a medium format camera, which of course shows up at 640x480.

04/16/2003 12:02:42 PM · #20

This is probably true if they refer to absolute resolution as number of RGB pixels (you need 3). So at 11 megapixels that's just almost 4 megapixels of RGB colors. Still about 1/2 of 8 megapixels that is required to reach 50 lines per mm (which most lenses can't resolve down to that level....)

Originally posted by dadas115:

04/16/2003 12:18:22 PM · #21

Where did you find this?

you can get DOF with a G2 the same as on a 35mm with 24 mm lens (G2 @ F8 has a hyperfocal distance of 1.02 meters @ the 34 mm equivalent view). DOF has nothing to do with the format size. DOF is based on the coverage area + the focal length + aperature and is scalable. F-stops are DIFFERENT per camera format, FYI. Just because you can stop down to F-64 doesn't mean the DOF will be greater than 35 mm equivalent.

The reason for large format,etc. is for the size of the negative and the amount of enlargements you can make from it.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

It's all about the depth of field available. You just can't get the control with a 35mm-sized frame that you can from a medium format camera, which of course shows up at 640x480.

04/16/2003 12:36:25 PM · #22

most LF and MF lenses have a larger COC than 35mm lenses.

04/16/2003 12:48:46 PM · #23

Actually, all of them do. COC is defined as the largest circle on a 8x12 print that you can see as a single point.

Formula is D / 1730, where D is the diagonal of the measure of "film" in mm.

So the larger the sensor/film, the larger the CoC. Think of it as the requirement of lens being able to resolve to the CoC in order to look nice on a 8x12 print, assuming you have enough film "grain" or "pixels" to reach the CoC as well.

Canon PowerShot G2 for example has a CoC of 0.006mm, but i doubt its lens can resolve down to that level.

Originally posted by dadas115:

most LF and MF lenses have a larger COC than 35mm lenses.

04/16/2003 01:00:36 PM · #24

I was under the impression that some of the lenses for use on the Contax 645 cameras were also for use on some of their 35mm and as a result had a smaller COC. I could be wrong about this but I seem to remember having read that somewhere. Maybe it was in the Olympus E10 review on imaging-resource.com or it could have been on luminous-landscape somewhere.

Greg