Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does the D800E reach MF quality ?  (Read 16510 times)
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2012, 04:30:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that the phenomena that Nikkor DC portrait lenses is trying to reproduce?

Cheers,
Bernard


Kind of, they play with a ring which allows the "reintroduction" of lens errors. I think it is not very convincing. But they use it for much longer lenses. The equivalent for a 105mm / 135 mm lens would be a what in 8x10? 600-900 mm. i never used something so long on 8x10.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5073


« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2012, 05:15:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe that with larger formats, for a given FOV, you are always closer to 1-1 repro size, which gives a different look ...
That is only of much significance in the close-up range, where that the magnification is more than about 1:20 (this is the typical guideline in optics literature for when the simple optical guidelines for comparing DOF and such between formats break-down.) It is not going to be a relevant difference between MF and smaller formats at ranges more than a few feet.

[EDIT: jsch explains some of this too; I add that when the larger format is DMF instead of 10"x8", the threshold distance for being "pretty identical" is reduced in proportion, to about 2 meters. But do not take the "1/3 of DOF in front, 2/3 behind" literally: the specific numbers are meaningless as they depend on many factors, and the statement is just an indication that "more is acceptably in focus behind the plane of exact focus than in front".]

Also, another effect of format differences is that it makes spherical aberrations (and aberrations in general) at equal f-stop worse in larger formats, because light passing though near the outer edges of the aperture is reaching the lens further from the center, and so the angular variation between the paths of different rays from the same part of the subject is greater. That is, the incoming cone of light gathered from each point of the subject has a wider angle. (The strength of various aberrations vary in proportion to various powers of this angle.)  In fact, in partial contrast to what jsch says, a simple linear scaling down of a lens design to get one for a smaller format covering the same FOV and with equal minimum f-stop gives less aberrations at equal f-stop due to these reduced angular variations.

On the other hand, when one uses a proportionately lower f-stop in the smaller format, for example to get equal DOF or equal shutter speed at the lower ISO speed usable in the smaller format, then the range of incoming angles is equal, so that disadvantage of the larger formats goes away, and the lower minimum f-stop designs probably require more careful correction.

And yet again: with equal FOV in different formats, and far enough from the subject that the magnification is less than about 1/20 (i.e., subject distance about 20 times focal length or more) the transition from sharp to unsharp is determined almost entirely by the effective aperture diameter (entrance pupil diameter), which is the ratio of focal length to f-stop. Format size has almost no inherent relevance to this except in "close-ups". Please search out and consult any of numerous sources on lens optics, such has online lecture notes from various reputable universities, if you need a detailed explanation of that.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 05:27:28 PM by BJL » Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2012, 08:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Nikon is getting a lot of well deserved attention over the D800(E); however, it seems that Sony is really the company responsible for the progress.  Any thoughts on where this sensor and any larger variants may appear?
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 496



WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2012, 06:29:18 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm going to stay agnostic on the "look" question, because I used to believe it to be true, but an starting to doubt.

However, I will say this: the Fuji X-Pro1 delivered files - in out-of-camera jpeg, with better skin tones than any other camera I've recently used.  And I am not the only one to have noticed this. 

Now, I didn't buy the camera (yet) for a variety of reasons unrelated to image quality.  However, it has proven to me that technological advances in both sensor design and processing are fundamentally altering the rules of what is visually possible from smaller sensors. 

Scaled-up, the Fuji X-trans would blow anything else away (at the moment).

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5073


« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2012, 08:41:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Any thoughts on where this sensor and any larger variants may appear?
My thoughts are that:

- This sensor (or a close cousin) is likely to appear in a new Sony SLT model later this year, as has been indicated by Sony. If so, that will effectively confirm that Sony is no longer making cameras with optical vewfinders.

- In the longer term, such a sensor might appear in a Leica product, but not in an M body anytime soon, because Leica officials have explicitly said in a recent interview (reported in BJP and elsewhere) that it is staying with Kodak/Truesense CCD sensors for the M bodies.

- There will almost certainly not be any larger variant: Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic and other CMOS sensor designers and makers have shown absolutely no interest in the relatively tiny market for sensors for DMF, and with cameras like the D800(E) eating a bit more into the former market for formats larger than 36x24mm, any such move into those larger formats is even less likely now than before.

Of course, I am not absolutely ruling out a larger CMOS sensor suitable for DMF, but judge it very unlikely. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we will probably have to wait a few years for confirmation, much as was agreed in another thread. I expect this to evolve as with the formerly frequent speculations about Canon or Nikon launching new systems in a format larger than 35mm: those dreams seem to have been abandoned.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 08:47:26 AM by BJL » Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2012, 12:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

..............Of course, I am not absolutely ruling out a larger CMOS sensor suitable for DMF, but judge it very unlikely. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we will probably have to wait a few years for confirmation, much as was agreed in another thread. ....................

Yes, I think we still have 4 years and 11 months to wait on that bet. Cheesy

Given the progress in CMOS sensors why would Leica remain with CCDs?
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2012, 01:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

That is only of much significance in the close-up range, where that the magnification is more than about 1:20 (this is the typical guideline in optics literature for when the simple optical guidelines for comparing DOF and such between formats break-down.) It is not going to be a relevant difference between MF and smaller formats at ranges more than a few feet.

[EDIT: jsch explains some of this too; I add that when the larger format is DMF instead of 10"x8", the threshold distance for being "pretty identical" is reduced in proportion, to about 2 meters. But do not take the "1/3 of DOF in front, 2/3 behind" literally: the specific numbers are meaningless as they depend on many factors, and the statement is just an indication that "more is acceptably in focus behind the plane of exact focus than in front".]

Also, another effect of format differences is that it makes spherical aberrations (and aberrations in general) at equal f-stop worse in larger formats, because light passing though near the outer edges of the aperture is reaching the lens further from the center, and so the angular variation between the paths of different rays from the same part of the subject is greater. That is, the incoming cone of light gathered from each point of the subject has a wider angle. (The strength of various aberrations vary in proportion to various powers of this angle.)  In fact, in partial contrast to what jsch says, a simple linear scaling down of a lens design to get one for a smaller format covering the same FOV and with equal minimum f-stop gives less aberrations at equal f-stop due to these reduced angular variations.

On the other hand, when one uses a proportionately lower f-stop in the smaller format, for example to get equal DOF or equal shutter speed at the lower ISO speed usable in the smaller format, then the range of incoming angles is equal, so that disadvantage of the larger formats goes away, and the lower minimum f-stop designs probably require more careful correction.

And yet again: with equal FOV in different formats, and far enough from the subject that the magnification is less than about 1/20 (i.e., subject distance about 20 times focal length or more) the transition from sharp to unsharp is determined almost entirely by the effective aperture diameter (entrance pupil diameter), which is the ratio of focal length to f-stop. Format size has almost no inherent relevance to this except in "close-ups". Please search out and consult any of numerous sources on lens optics, such has online lecture notes from various reputable universities, if you need a detailed explanation of that.

Hi BJL,

you are absolutely right. At the moment I focus on 8x10 inch b&w film and Canon digital. You explained the reason for that. For my images and for my eye digital 35 mm full frame and a digital medium format make no difference. So I stay with the Canon. Film up to 4x5 inch can give some difference, but the scanning process of these formats is cumbersome and it is very time consuming and expensive to make a scan which brings out everything that is in the film. 8x10 really shines. The look is really different and special and a fine tuned Epson V750 brings out almost everything that is in the negative (I would guess 1700 dpi optical resolution). So for me this combination works fine.

It is always the question how you judge quality. Is it sharpness, resolution, the absence of lens errors or the presence of lens errors. In the end it is the image and the reaction of the people who look at your images and like or dislike them. In portraiture the like-density of my 8x10 work is much higher than the like density of my 35 mm digital work. In contrary the architectural work I do. People prefer my Canon 5D Mark II images over my 8x10 inch images. This is the judgement by non photographic people who don't know about the cameras I use. From a photographers point of view this is strange.

But I think I'm in the wrong thread for all this information. But the Nikon D800 and the Hasselblads are also cool cameras. In the right hands they can deliver stunning photos.

Best,
Johanes
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5073


« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2012, 02:05:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Given the progress in CMOS sensors why would Leica remain with CCDs?
That is an interesting question, especially coming in a press conference where Leica people also talked about advantages of CMOS, described them as the way of the future, and the fact that Leica is using Sony CMOS sensors in its smaller format, fixed lens X1 and X2 models.

My first guess is that this is because there is a substantial investment involved in changing all the support electronics and firmware around the sensor, which with the relatively low unit sales of the M series adds significantly to the price, and so Leica is at least moving slowly on any shift to a radically new type of sensor. But there could also be philosophical factors slowing things down. For example, I can imagine that Leica insists on continuing the pure approach of having no OLP filter, and will not accept the strange approach of the D800E, which in turn might be the only option for now because of the way that those sensors are manufactured (needing the second OLPF sheet bonded to the sensor?)

Four years and eleven months should be enough time for them to solve all the engineering challenges though!
Logged
peterv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2012, 04:59:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, that timeframe should be more than enough. Perhaps quite soon we'll see a CMOS Leica M:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2174163/leica-hints-video-features-upcoming-m10

In the same article they mention True Sense as their preferred sensor supplier.

The upcoming S3 is also rumored to have CMOS, which would make a lot of sense IMHO.
Logged
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2012, 07:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The upcoming S3 is also rumored to have CMOS, which would make a lot of sense IMHO.

If true, that would make it the first MFD unit with CMOS*. Which would be terrific, if it gets the CMOS ball rolling with the other manufacturers.

Ray

*Yair, before you interject - I know about the Leaf C-MOST back....but that sensor wasn't larger than 35mm format. (And it was noisier than the 35mm format CCDs of the day)
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5073


« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2012, 08:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps quite soon we'll see a CMOS Leica M:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2174163/leica-hints-video-features-upcoming-m10

In the same article they mention True Sense as their preferred sensor supplier.
Truesense Imaging (the former Kodak sensor division) only makes CCDs, not CMOS sensors: that is why I concluded that there is no CMOS M camera coming in the foreseeable future. I seriously doubt that a custom 30x45mm (or larger) CMOS sensor would be designed and made for the very low volume Leica S series; even less so than for the M, where Leica has for now ruled out a CMOS sensor.
Logged
peterv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2012, 11:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Truesense Imaging (the former Kodak sensor division) only makes CCDs ...

Yes, that's why I mentioned them because I can not combine the Leica management statement about Truesense Imaging being the sensor supplier on the one hand and the video rumors on the other. Oh well, we'll see in a couple of months, or not...

Logged
David Schneider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


Portrait Studio Owner


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2012, 08:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

 

Scaled-up, the Fuji X-trans would blow anything else away (at the moment).



Based on what's been shown with the XPro-1, if Fuji takes it's experience making medium format, their experience making Hasselblad lenses, makes that XPro-1 sensor larger (especially with it's high iso capability) and makes a medium format camera it could change the face of mfd and leave Hassie and Phase One, and maybe even Leica, in the dust.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad