review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back

Bill Hilton writes:

 > For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ...
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml</font" target="_blank">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml</font</a>>
 >
 > The last section, "The Future of Medium Format Digital", was pretty
 > interesting.

Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.

When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

In article <dencs01v7g55dvj62ipo552vbof9ao70jq DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 >
 > Nice images.

Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

 > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
 > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.

Another ostrich.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dencs01v7g55dvj62ipo552vbof9ao70jq@4ax.com...
 > Bill Hilton writes:
 >
  > > For the six people on this NG interested in this stuff ...
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml</font" target="_blank">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml</font</a>>
  > >
  > > The last section, "The Future of Medium Format Digital", was pretty
  > > interesting.
 >
 > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
 > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.
 >
 > When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.
 >
 > --
 > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

In article <UOCxd.2101$h.587@trnddc04>, "Shelley" <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.net>
wrote:

  > > Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
  > > close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.
 >
 > Another ostrich.

Ok then you cough up the 40K and we all will shoot with it

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

Gregory Blank writes:

 > Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like.

Lots of digital images are like that.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

Shelley writes:

 > Another ostrich.

No, just another photographer who isn't independently wealthy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

In article <7u6es0pfknthqe5finen75ef4nh36d18qb.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

 > Gregory Blank writes:
 >
  > > Did you really think so? I thought them rather drab and test like.
 >
 > Lots of digital images are like that.

Which is why I am not tremendously impressed with digital camera
images or the "benefits" of using them.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

Shelley wrote:

  >> Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
  >> close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.
 >
 > Another ostrich.
 >

$40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology but
until storage and sensor prices come down, this "size" of digital isn't
realistic for most people. I finally broke down and bought an 8MP SLR and
feel it should work for stuff I don't want to blow up very big. I'll have
to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will. I
know it's not going to replace my 4X5!
--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

"Stacey" <fotocord.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
 > $40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology
but
 > until storage and sensor prices come down, this "size" of digital isn't
 > realistic for most people. I finally broke down and bought an 8MP SLR and
 > feel it should work for stuff I don't want to blow up very big.

Welcome to the dark side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 > I'll have
 > to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will.

??? Is this the same Stacey we all know and love ???

In the real world, 35mm edges out 6MP, but 8MP is very very close. With
quality film and scans, though, IMHO, it takes 16.7MP for digital to get
into the 645 ballpark.

Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645. The digital is crudely
sharpened, but you get the idea: rather similar level of detail rendered
with the Tech Pan coming out somewhat ahead. The digital needs to be
upsampled by a factor of 1.85 or so to match the magnification of a 4000 dpi
scan of 645, and is getting rather soft at that scale. (This is a 22mm lens
on a dSLR with the same pixel pitch as the 1Dsmk2 vs. a 35mm lens on 645.)

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original" target="_blank">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original</a>

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

David J. Littleboy wrote:

 >
 > "Stacey" <fotocord RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
  >>
  >> $40K isn't realistic for most people reading here. It's neat technology
 > but
  >> until storage and sensor prices come down, this "size" of digital isn't
  >> realistic for most people. I finally broke down and bought an 8MP SLR and
  >> feel it should work for stuff I don't want to blow up very big.
 >
 > Welcome to the dark side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level. I've
watched for years as people said "This new digicam is almost as good as
35mm", I think they are really there now. Should have my old OM 35mm stuff
on ebay this spring. Xmas seems like a bad time to post it but maybe people
will have Xmas $$ to spend after xmas?

 >
  >> I'll have
  >> to see if it's good enough to replace my 6X4.5 but I kinda doubt it will.
 >
 > ??? Is this the same Stacey we all know and love ???

I did say I doubt it will..

 >
 > In the real world, 35mm edges out 6MP, but 8MP is very very close. With
 > quality film and scans, though, IMHO, it takes 16.7MP for digital to get
 > into the 645 ballpark.
 >
 > Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645.

But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films so maybe it's not
too far off?

BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc?

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

"Stacey" <fotocord.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

 > Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level.
I've
 > watched for years as people said "This new digicam is almost as good as
 > 35mm", I think they are really there now.

That's certainly what the few 8MP vs. 4000 dpi Provia 100F scan comparisons
I've seen show. And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less
than 35mm.

  > > Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645.
 >
 > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films so maybe it's not
 > too far off?

I really should redo that with Reala, now that Tech Pan's been discontinued.

 > BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc?

Hmm. I've mostly picked up what I know lurking (or arguing<g>) in the
various forums and mailing lists. People say good things about "Adobe
Photoshop for Photographers" and "Real World Photoshop". I keep trying to
read them, but they're too dense of introductory stuff...

"Real World Color Management" and "Mastering Digital Printing" are also in
my "too be read" pile. (All four of these arrived here due to being
recommended often enough in the various mailing lists.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less
 > than 35mm.

Do lens quality and print size not enter into this at all? In other words,
the "sensible pages" all say that a 6mp camera is simply inherently inferior
to 35mm using any lens at any print size - e.g. I can put a Nikon pro lens
on my Nikon D100 camera and make an 8x10 print but the results will always
be worse than the same print from a 35mm point and shoot camera with an 8x
zoom lens? How about 35mm in a disposable camera compared to the D100 and
Nikon pro lens? The image from the disposable camera will always be better?
At any print size?

I quit using 35mm years ago because the largest satisfactory (to me) print I
could usually make with it was 6x9 so I can't make a side by side
comparison. But I've been using a 6mp Nikon D100 with a Nikon 60mm macro
lens for photographs around the house and my wife used it on a recent trip.
I've made some 8x10 prints from the images, they look very nice,
subjectively to me they look at least as good, actually better in many
cases, than I remember my 8x10 prints looking from my 35mm system (Nikon F4
camera, Nikon pro lenses).

  > > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films . . . .

Tech Pan is (was) a negative film.

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cq8i7j$v1u$1@nnrp.gol.com...
 >
 > "Stacey" <fotocord.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
  > > Thanx.. I'm glad I was able to "hold out" till they got to this level.
 > I've
  > > watched for years as people said "This new digicam is almost as good as
  > > 35mm", I think they are really there now.
 >
 > That's certainly what the few 8MP vs. 4000 dpi Provia 100F scan
comparisons
 > I've seen show. And the more sensible pages all agreed that 6MP was less
 > than 35mm.
 >
   > > > Here's a simulation of 16.7MP vs. Tech Pan in 645.
  > >
  > > But I never shoot tech pan, mainly shoot negative films so maybe it's
not
  > > too far off?
 >
 > I really should redo that with Reala, now that Tech Pan's been
discontinued.
 >
  > > BTW any advice on good books to read on working with digital files etc?
 >
 > Hmm. I've mostly picked up what I know lurking (or arguing<g>) in the
 > various forums and mailing lists. People say good things about "Adobe
 > Photoshop for Photographers" and "Real World Photoshop". I keep trying to
 > read them, but they're too dense of introductory stuff...
 >
 > "Real World Color Management" and "Mastering Digital Printing" are also in
 > my "too be read" pile. (All four of these arrived here due to being
 > recommended often enough in the various mailing lists.)
 >
 > David J. Littleboy
 > Tokyo, Japan
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back 

In article <4KVxd.3581$hc7.1567@trnddc06>, Shelley <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote:
 >
 >Do lens quality and print size not enter into this at all? In other words,
 >the "sensible pages" all say that a 6mp camera is simply inherently inferior
 >to 35mm using any lens at any print size - e.g. I can put a Nikon pro lens
 >on my Nikon D100 camera and make an 8x10 print but the results will always
 >be worse than the same print from a 35mm point and shoot camera with an 8x
 >zoom lens? How about 35mm in a disposable camera compared to the D100 and
 >Nikon pro lens? The image from the disposable camera will always be better?
 >At any print size?

these comparisons are usually based on decently scanned slow slide films,
typically Provia 100F and Velvia, in its various different guises.

The decent negative films, such as Reala, are a slightly different
proposition, and you'll rpobably not get the slight edge over a 6MP DSLR
that you can with slow revresal. If you start using consumer print film, the
DSLR almost certainly edges out in front. If you use the sort of print film
they put in disposables, typically 400 or 800 ISO stuff, the DSLR will be so
much better it's not funny.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back