Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can we expect new sensors at Photokina?  (Read 17278 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2010, 09:12:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I'd suggest that these are excellent points. I would just add that reducing Moiré without taking resort to AA-filtering is one of the advantages of increasing resolution. As Bernard always would point out, you can always increase resolution by stitching. That approach may be practical for landscape photography, studio may be another thing.

'Horses for the courses'

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: JdeV
By what criteria do you want to make the comparison?

1) You get considerably more accurate colour from a P65+ than any form of scanned film, including 8x10.

2) You also get considerably less dynamic range (at the highlight end) than scanned colour negative (but significantly more than scanned colour transparency).

3) The P65+ will generate unpleasant moire under relevant conditions, it can also render neon and some other subjects in strange bad ways that are hard to correct.

In real world tests a P65+ with a good lens will generally yield similar or even slightly better levels of resolution than a scanned sheet of 4x5 film. However, 8x10 is still in another league. The increase in resolution going from 4x5 to 8x10 scanned film is only slightly less than a straightforward linear geometric increase. To equal 8x10 resolution, even going to a 5 micron sensor (about the limit with foreseeable lens technology), will require something of the order of 240MP and a sensor size of around 66mm x 90mm.

However, to put this in perspective, shooting 8x10 is a royal pain and very prone to technical errors which render its potential rather moot. Of course it also has very shallow depth of field so in most circumstances the resolution advantage only applies to shots focused at infinity without the requirement of sharp foreground information. Because of this and because of point 1) a digital back some way short of this size and resolution would still be effectively superior to even 8x10 film for virtually all purposes.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2010, 09:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BartvanderWolf
Hi Eric,

While a blackframe subtraction would change the DR, it is not for the better. Simple blackframe subtraction is only for the removal of non-random (pattern) noise, it increase random noise levels (by up to 40% for the shadows).

The DxO database is not such a bad startingpoint.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks Bart.

I don't know exactly what Phase is doing with their files in C1 in addition to the black frame subtraction but it seems like more.  I guess this could be tested and the numbers compared to find out how much.   I don't believe my imatest license is still active so I won't try this but it would be an easy thing to do to see how much improvement in at least DR can be had with or without C1 and also a good way to show the real DR differences between backs and DSLRs.  If Imatest and DXO agreed on DR values for the stricter S/N ratio that's meaningful to photographers I'd be surprised but would of course be able to let this rest.  Note how the DR of the D3x dropped down from just under 13 stops to only 7.5 stops DR at base ISO when changing the acceptable S/N ratio to something meaningful to photographers....  That's a big adjustment!   I don't think DXO does any service by even using the high values since they are not applicable to photographers.  They should only be using the set of data Emil posted.    Anyhow last time I tested DSLR and CCD sensors, the drop in the DSLR was dramatic like the D3x to almost half, however the drop in the MFDB was only 1 stop or so - but then I used capture one to convert the raws...    I'd expect the same to be true now.  Looking at the usable DR not theoretical max  MFDB's probably have about 10.5 to 11 stops while the DSLR's have something like the nikon d3x does - 7.5 to 8 stops.  

It all has to do with how it's measured and DXO is not doing anyone any favors (except themselves).
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2010, 10:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Note how the DR of the D3x dropped down from just under 13 stops to only 7.5 stops DR at base ISO when changing the acceptable S/N ratio to something meaningful to photographers....  That's a big adjustment!   I don't think DXO does any service by even using the high values since they are not applicable to photographers.  They should only be using the set of data Emil posted.

Eric,

As explained to you by Emil a few posts above (here), the P65+ shows 7 stops of DR in the same contiditons where the D3x shows 7.5.

Do you believe in their results?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:49:44 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2010, 10:48:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

To begin with, Phase One raw files have a lot of extra calibration data that C1 can utilize to improve image quality.

Regarding DR I'd suggest that it is actually very simple. You measure it exposing something like a "Stoufer wedge" and measure noise in each area. DxO actually publishes all data. So anyone can apply any threshold on SNR. Keep in mind that DR is an engineering term and it's standard definition is what DxO is measuring. I actually would suggest that DxO does a service to the community by presenting accurate data. The fact that the community doesn't know how to interpret data doesn't invalidate DxO measurements. There is no data available on DR at all, except those published by DxO.

An interesting point by Emil Martinec is that the vision system is sensitive to different noise patterns. Minolta sensors used to have a patchy look in ACR based RAW-converters. Panopeeper has analyzed a lot of exposures I made with a Sony Alpha 900 and interpreted it as noise reduction, whereas other authors regarded it to be round of error in AD conversion. With LR3 the patchyness is gone and we have a nice tight grain pattern instead. DR is not increased, but the image is much more useful. Some authors say that the Canon D1s# cameras have ugly pattern noise and the Nikon D3X is much better in that sense.

I am much opposed to the approach to miss credit any finding that we don't like. DxO has a bunch of engineers and they measure DR according to established procedures, that certainly has a value.

Michael Reichmann has compared the Canon 5DII, the Sony Alpha 900 and the Nikon D3X and found that the image quality was similar at low ISO, but he didn't compare DR as he considered it to be difficult to measure. In my view that was a resaonable approach

Regarding DR we can reproduce about seven stops on paper. THe DR of papers, printer and ink in combination is about 7 stops. So whenever we discuss DR in prints the DR has been compressed by applying a lot of manipulations lake gradation curves and clarity. It's very possible that Phase One can pull out more information from an image than ACR using proprietary information from individual sensor calibration and other data.

One of the issues I see that terms are invented to explain differences we see, but there is no reference frame for those terms. There is talk about microcontrast, tonality and so on. DR is also like that, except it has a technical definition (and I think an ANSI standard for measuring it).


Best regards
Erik
Quote from: EricWHiss
Thanks Bart.



It all has to do with how it's measured and DXO is not doing anyone any favors (except themselves).
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2010, 10:58:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

Many on this forums tend to discredit DxO data if they don't like it. In my view, discrediting measurements is not a scientific approach. It's like the old practice of shooting the messenger when you don't like the message.


It's OK to say that measurements are wrong but you need to state in what way they are wrong or produce evidence to the contrary. It's quite obvious that there is a lot of data at DxO if you care to dig into it, like Emil's comparison that you quoted.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Eric,

As explained to you by Emil a few posts above, the P65+ shows 7 stops of DR in the same contiditons where the D3x shows 7.5.

Do you believe in their results?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2010, 11:11:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Thanks Bart.

I don't know exactly what Phase is doing with their files in C1 in addition to the black frame subtraction but it seems like more.  I guess this could be tested and the numbers compared to find out how much.

I have not seen this documented anywhere, but C1 does seem to apply automatically noise reduction selectively to shadow areas.

This is true not just for back files, it also does it on D3x shadows.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2010, 11:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
It's OK to say that measurements are wrong but you need to state in what way they are wrong or produce evidence to the contrary. It's quite obvious that there is a lot of data at DxO if you care to dig into it, like Emil's comparison that you quoted.

Erik,

Yes, indeed.

As was said several time, the lack of evidence that DxO is wrong, months after the release of their data, is probably the best proof that they are right...  

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2010, 11:29:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JdeV
1) You get considerably more accurate colour from a P65+ than any form of scanned film, including 8x10.

2) You also get considerably less dynamic range (at the highlight end) than scanned colour negative (but significantly more than scanned colour transparency).

3) The P65+ will generate unpleasant moire under relevant conditions, it can also render neon and some other subjects in strange bad ways that are hard to correct.

I concur that the above post #60 by Steve Hendrix speaks very well indeed. Else it is remarkable that any post on MFDB appear to take turn in posts comparing to DSLR. Those tools are completely different, and not merely in image quality. It has been stated in film days already that stepping up from SLR to medium format causes an immediate improvement in ones photography. I believe the reason is that we see better and slow down more with medium format. It lends to a more deliberate and planned approach.

In contrast to medium format cameras, DSLRs are seemingly being stuffed with more and more wizbang and buttons by each new iteration. Personally I prefer more analog interface by medium format and am keen on technical camera with even more such. Simple and manual makes me focus more on photography rather than the interface. We are all different. While technological advancement is great, I for one hand the TV remote to my wife because it has many buttons! Simply my mind is more analogue. That is one advantage with MDFB and associated cameras that is worthy to mention as a great strength. Some people like all the electronic features and interface, while others like me much prefer an analogue interface.

The above list 1-3 is actually exact contrary to the list of where I would like to see MFDB improve:

1) Colors may be accurate with MFDB and more so than DSLR, however as a landscape shooter I do not want accurate colors. What I want is colors that pleasingly render nature and light in same manner or better as Velvia 50 do. No digital today enables you to reach that objective with any means of ease. And no, it is not possible today to replicate the beauty of Fuji Velvia 50. This is why I still also shoot film.

2) DR on MFDB is great and exceeds DSLR, however the problem with digital is that it is a linear capture and does not have the nature of film at highlights. That is one of the weaknesses with digital today. What happened to Fuji's patent of a new type of sensor? We need a new type of sensors with a response similar to film.

3) I use Aptus 65 28MP MFDB and have not encountered much worthy of problem with moire. With higher resolution the problem becomes smaller, unless I am mistaken. However, there are tools to deal with it, e.g. in Capture One. Thus it is nil issue for MFDB.

In regards to resolution, also my 28MP digital back is suffice for portraits. However, for landscapes I would prefer around 80MP for landscapes, both to get high resolution single captures in 4x5 proportions, but also single crops in decent size of 617 proportions. I think more than 80MP in FF 645 sensors would be around what todays sharpest lenses can resolve from Bayer type sensors and in order not not make more problem with tolerances on equipment. After that, yes... would be great with larger sensors instead of having to buy $$$ set of new higher resolving lenses. The question is perhaps if the industry will choose such path instead of trying make us buy new lenses and cameras?

And frankly why stick to 645 proportioned sensors (1.33:1) instead of 4x5 proportioned (1.25:1)? With same image circle, a 4x5 proportioned sensor will yield a larger area, as of course... by many considered a far more pleasant proportion of frame.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 11:34:30 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2010, 11:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
2) DR on MFDB is great and exceeds DSLR, however the problem with digital is that it is a linear capture and does not have the nature of film at highlights. That is one of the weaknesses with digital today. What happened to Fuji's patent of a new type of sensor? We need a new type of sensors with a response similar to film.

Anders,

Why is this a problem? It just requires a different approach to exposure.

The DR of backs is already way superior to that of Velvia and that is IMHO the main reason why we sometimes feel that digital is less pleasant colorwise. When shooting Velvia, especially when you need to scan it, you know that you have less than 5 stops of usable DR, and that forces you to concentrate on scenes where the sweet light hits the right spot.

When shooting digital there is much more freedom to address other types of scenes where the light isn't exactly how it should be. That works,  but in the end the colors feel less nice just because the light was less sweet.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 08, 2010, 12:21:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Anders,

Why is this a problem? It just requires a different approach to exposure.

The DR of backs is already way superior to that of Velvia and that is IMHO the main reason why we sometimes feel that digital is less pleasant colorwise. When shooting Velvia, especially when you need to scan it, you know that you have less than 5 stops of usable DR, and that forces you to concentrate on scenes where the sweet light hits the right spot.

When shooting digital there is much more freedom to address other types of scenes where the light isn't exactly how it should be. That works,  but in the end the colors feel less nice just because the light was less sweet.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

Simply the rendering is different in highlights no matter how adjust/expose. This is an issue primarily for transient light, where is a very large DR. Film simply has the transition towards blown out white that is more pleasing.

Rgds
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 08, 2010, 12:44:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Bernard,

Many on this forums tend to discredit DxO data if they don't like it. In my view, discrediting measurements is not a scientific approach. It's like the old practice of shooting the messenger when you don't like the message.


It's OK to say that measurements are wrong but you need to state in what way they are wrong or produce evidence to the contrary. It's quite obvious that there is a lot of data at DxO if you care to dig into it, like Emil's comparison that you quoted.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,
I'm not discrediting DXO because I don't like it. I'm pointing out a valid flaw in the way they approach MFDB.  Your argument re:shooting the messenger is silly. Why do you defend them?   I have a stoufer transmission step wedge and have used it to test DR with imatest software in the past. I know how it works so save yourself the trouble.

Bernard,
I didn't answer your question because I've had you set to ignore since I got tired of reading that stitching was the solution for everything.  But your question was answered  - DXO data for MFDB is not accurate for the reasons I've already pointed out. When I see

To all reading this point - the fuss about DR is because I'm hoping that any new sensors that come out at photokina will have more improvement in DR than in pixels.  I'd rather see a bigger sensor preferably one with a more square ratio than a rectangle.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2010, 01:17:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Bernard,
I didn't answer your question because I've had you set to ignore since I got tired of reading that stitching was the solution for everything.  But your question was answered  - DXO data for MFDB is not accurate for the reasons I've already pointed out. When I see

Fine Eric, whatever works for you sir.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 01:22:26 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #92 on: July 08, 2010, 01:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
Bernard,

Simply the rendering is different in highlights no matter how adjust/expose. This is an issue primarily for transient light, where is a very large DR. Film simply has the transition towards blown out white that is more pleasing.

I see, it is true that the transition to the edges of the sun is often handled better by slides/nega.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 08, 2010, 06:10:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
I'm suggesting that you check DXO's initial assumption before cranking out a lot of science based on their data.  DXO is not using C1 to convert phase files first and that improves them significantly.

True, it does improve my D3x files also thanks to their automatic shadow cleaning algos. Very nice I have to say! I am sure that the D3x would gain some more DR stops if it were measured on C1 conversions.  

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 08:20:49 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #94 on: July 08, 2010, 11:09:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
... Nikon has had good success pitching the large-pixel D700 against the 5DII which outresolves it by a factor of 2 (2 generations of sensors).

Edmund
True: the observations about evidence of a strong market preference for greater image detail (more MP, etc.) were addressed to the medium format market. The lower pixel count of the D700 compared to similarly priced alternatives arguably helps it to offer better low light performance and a higher frame rate, but neither of these is of much of a selling point for lower pixel count MF backs.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 08, 2010, 11:10:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The way I see it DxO does publish measurements, no one else does. So the only data we have freely available to compare cameras is coming from DxO. The reason i defend DxO is:

1) Their measurements are based on standards and comparable across systems
2) Generally, I got the impression that imaging experts regard the DxO data as relevant
3) Generally, I got the impression that DxO data is quite consistent with specifications of sensors
4) I have not seen any firm evidence of the several step advantage of MFDB CCDs over DSLRs sensors.

Now, it would be easy to post two correct exposures of Stoufer wedges as RAW files, so anyone could see the difference with their own eyes. To my knowledge no one has made such files downloadable. A few years ago a Swedish periodical did publish Stouffer wedge exposures with different sensors and there was about one stop difference between DSLRs and MFDBs in that test. That is the only wedge based comparison I have seen.

There is another observation regarding MFDBs.

Let's assume that we expose to the right, thus choosing to put highlights near saturation. Lets also assume that we shoot at say 100 ISO. Would an MFDB have 4 steps better DR than a DSLR it would need to achive the same performance at 1600 ISO as the DSLR at 100 ISO. This is clearly not the case. MFDBs do not perform well at high ISO. Don't know why. With correct exposure to the right DR would show up as latitude for underexposure.

So to sum up:

- I have not seen any theory explaining why MFDBs would have more than one stop advantage over DSLRs.
- DxO data seems to agree well with predictions based on theory
- Extended DR is in my view not consistent with bad high ISO performance on MFDBs.

That said, I have nothing against MFDBs. The only issue I have that I have only seen a single comparison between MFDBs and DSLRs based on Stouffer wedges and the difference was about one stop. So if the DR advantage with MFDBs really exists I would like to see it demonstrated in correctly made test shots, or have a physically correct explanation on the difference.

Best regards
Erik



Quote from: EricWHiss
Erik,
I'm not discrediting DXO because I don't like it. I'm pointing out a valid flaw in the way they approach MFDB.  Your argument re:shooting the messenger is silly. Why do you defend them?   I have a stoufer transmission step wedge and have used it to test DR with imatest software in the past. I know how it works so save yourself the trouble.

Bernard,
I didn't answer your question because I've had you set to ignore since I got tired of reading that stitching was the solution for everything.  But your question was answered  - DXO data for MFDB is not accurate for the reasons I've already pointed out. When I see

To all reading this point - the fuss about DR is because I'm hoping that any new sensors that come out at photokina will have more improvement in DR than in pixels.  I'd rather see a bigger sensor preferably one with a more square ratio than a rectangle.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2010, 11:41:30 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3878



WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 08, 2010, 01:47:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
True: the observations about evidence of a strong market preference for greater image detail (more MP, etc.) were addressed to the medium format market. The lower pixel count of the D700 compared to similarly priced alternatives arguably helps it to offer better low light performance and a higher frame rate, but neither of these is of much of a selling point for lower pixel count MF backs.

How would we know? we still haven't got a single back with low pixel count made with a current pixel technology. I really think that a back shooting 2 frames/s would be a hit with the fashion crowd.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759


WWW
« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2010, 08:45:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
How would we know? we still haven't got a single back with low pixel count made with a current pixel technology. I really think that a back shooting 2 frames/s would be a hit with the fashion crowd.

You're right it would be - and it is: The Phase One P40+ shoots 10 megapixel images at a sustained 1.8 frames per second (as opposed to most dSLRs that shoots 5-10 frames very quickly until it fills the buffer). At the flip of a switch it can also shoot 40 megapixel images at a sustained 1.2 frames per second. If you did a 10 megapixel sensor at that sensor size you would have huge moire issues, but since the P40+ 10 megapixel file is produced by a pre-raw pixel binning it has the very-low moire characteristics of a 6 micron pixel size.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #98 on: July 09, 2010, 03:20:16 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='dougpetersonci' date='Jul 9 2010, 03:45 PM' post='375292']
You're right it would be - and it is: The Phase One P40+ shoots 10 megapixel images at a sustained 1.8 frames per second (as opposed to most dSLRs that shoots 5-10 frames very quickly until it fills the buffer). At the flip of a switch it can also shoot 40 megapixel images at a sustained 1.2 frames per second. If you did a 10 megapixel sensor at that sensor size you would have huge moire issues, but since the P40+ 10 megapixel file is produced by a pre-raw pixel binning it has the very-low moire characteristics of a 6 micron pixel size.

[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson
__________________


A bit academic since there is no camera you can stick a P40+ on that will accurately focus fast on a moving subject (surely the main reason one needs a lot of frames per second). No, despite the best marketing efforts this Phase pixel binning thing is deeply, deeply uninteresting as competition for a Nikon or a Canon.

However, a 40 megapixel 6x7 back would be hugely useful, (significantly less demanding of lenses, engineering, focus and technique than its sub-645 equivalent and much easier to use on a view camera). I am absolutely sure of its popularity were it to be priced comparably to its smaller cousin.

(Better still a 160 megapixel 6x7 back with 40 megapixel pixel binning but we might have to pay a bit more for that...).
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 03:21:46 PM by JdeV » Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1088


WWW
« Reply #99 on: July 09, 2010, 04:33:18 PM »
ReplyReply


Quote
A bit academic since there is no camera you can stick a P40+ on that will accurately focus fast on a moving subject (surely the main reason one needs a lot of frames per second). No, despite the best marketing efforts this Phase pixel binning thing is deeply, deeply uninteresting as competition for a Nikon or a Canon.

However, a 40 megapixel 6x7 back would be hugely useful, (significantly less demanding of lenses, engineering, focus and technique than its sub-645 equivalent and much easier to use on a view camera). I am absolutely sure of its popularity were it to be priced comparably to its smaller cousin.

(Better still a 160 megapixel 6x7 back with 40 megapixel pixel binning but we might have to pay a bit more for that...).

I agree somewhat. But it depends on the movement of the subject - how much and how fast. Some fashion is not shot with a lot of continuous, dramatic movement. But I never really saw the Sensor Plus pixel binning as a competitor to Canon/Nikon as much as it provided an alternative. The vast majority of our customers who shoot medium format digital also shoot Canon/Nikon, depending on the situation (and we know what those situations usually are). The Sensor Plus technology allows these photographers to shoot medium format in more situations than they would otherwise. I see this as a significant benefit because if they shoot medium format, they clearly want to shoot medium format and often are restricted to the amount that they can, depending on the project. So, I don't see Sensor Plus providing the option of not using Canon/Nikon for most, but rather extending the times they would use medium format.


Steve Hendri
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad