What's going to be the limit?
What's going to be the limit?
Call me old, call me a fool ... but I thought I'd list a couple of specs here:
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
Canon 1Dx: 50 to 204,800
Leaf Credo 80: 35 to 800
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!)
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.
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.
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...
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!
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.Originally Posted by from PCWorld link Colin posted
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.Originally Posted by rpcrowe
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.but I could just as well use a medium format if I wanted to crazy huge prints.
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.