Holy S---!! Pentax's medium format is only $9400!!!!
RichA
RichA
> a rumor it would be ~$6500USD. (Maybe whoever leaked that price was
> dyslexic. ;) )
>
> They are releasing it in Japan first, though, so *maybe* the US price
> will come down a hair by the time it hits our shores.
>
> Nice that it's weather and dust sealed, though.
Now at least we know low prices are possible with those big sensors
which means Hasselblad, Phase, Mamiya and Leica are charging...a lot.
Ray Fischer
>Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
And I expect that you'll be buying one quite soon since you obviously
don't want to be using some cheap 35mm format SLR with limited
resolution and image quality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
step...@yahoo.com
> Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
>
But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
$$$ MF glass etc.
Alfred Molon
> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> $$$ MF glass etc.
68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
suited as a camera to carry around with you.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Neil Ellwood
> Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
So it isn't really a 645 but just a cropped sensor.
--
neil
Reverse ‘r’ + ‘a’ and remove ‘l’.
Linux counter 335851
Bruce
The sensor is a 1.3X crop from 645 film.
Wide angles are a problem. The standard lens for this format is the
new SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm F2.8. Shorter focal length lenses will
be disproportionately expensive, as they always have been in medium
format. After all, a 50mm is the most popular wide angle lens for
that format (and the cheapest) but it would be pointless on a 645D.
The Pentax 645D is up against strong competition from the Hasselblad
H4D-40 which uses the same Kodak sensor. The H Series has a well
established and mostly satisfied user base, but the H4D-40 costs
$19,995 against the $9400 Japanese market price for the Pentax.
For the Pentax 645D to succeed, it will have to stay competitively
priced against the Hasselblad. $9995 would be a good start.
Both these cameras will wipe the floor with the Leica S2. The Leica
offers 37.5 MP on a slightly smaller 30 x 45mm Kodak sensor and is
already struggling to establish itself in the market, largely due to
its exceptionally high price of $22,995. Ouch! There is also the
problem of the 3:2 aspect ratio which is not popular in its target
market.
I predict that the Leica will fail, because sales to Leica diehards
will be nowhere near sufficient to make the S2 line profitable.
MikeWhy
news:MPG.2601a0f33...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
>
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
> body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
> suited as a camera to carry around with you.
Think how much fun these discussions will be when "crop" 4x5 scanning backs
break the $10k mark. Big versus tiny is relative. For many of us, 35mm is
hardly anywhere near "big". For that matter, 645 is tiny compared to even
6x9, let alone 4x5. No mirror box or complicated focal plane shutter in that
hawse. 5 lbs is a lightweight. ;)
Bruce
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>
>68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
Eh? Hasselblad DSLRs have 40 MP or even greater resolution. For
example, the Hasselblad H4D is available with 40, 50 or 60 MP sensors.
John A.
Well, it is metal.
Robert Spanjaard
> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide
>> angle $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
>
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror?
Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Michael Benveniste
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
Well, no 35mm-based DSLR system to be exact. The 645D is
only the latest and least expensive of the 40MP cameras based
on medium-format systems.
> But what turns me off is the weight - 1480g body only, with a lens it
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
See my (too long) comments below about weight.
I have a Pentax 645n, which of course has a larger mirror than this
camera will have. I've had no problems with mirror slap. When
Michael Reichmann tested a 645nii, he observed no difference between
shots taken with MLU and those taken without it.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
> body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
> suited as a camera to carry around with you.
One of the major advantages of a mirrorless system is a shorter
register distance. Had Pentax decided to go with such a design,
they would gain much less leverage from the existing 645 lenses.
Mamiya had at best mixed success with medium format film rangefinders,
even though it was a fine system. It took me almost a decade, but I
think I now understand why.
At one time, portable 120 and 620 film cameras were commonplace
consumer items. That's in part because the engineering cost equation
of the time favored making enlargements of lesser magnification from
larger negatives or slides. But that started changing over 30 years ago.
After the Canon AE-1 era made 35mm SLR's a mainline consumer
product, about the only time you saw a medium format being used
handheld was at a wedding. The rest of the time, they lived on tripods.
Weddings, of course, were typically a mix of on-tripod and off-tripod
use, but I wouldn't describe it as a "carry around" usage.
I predict a similar usage pattern for these high megapixel cameras.
The reason to _use_ a 40MP camera (as opposed to merely owning one) is
to produce 18x24" or larger prints. That's the same criteria I use
today in deciding to pick up my 645n.
Perhaps I have an old-fashioned mindset, but to me that means taking
the time and effort to plan, compose, and frame such a shot, plus
either waiting for or creating the right light. That in turn means
using a tripod whenever possible. That's especially true if I would
have to rely on an EVF, even with a live view.
Once you've committed to carrying around a tripod, then cost-
benefit ratio of lightweight gear becomes less attractive. It's
no longer a typical "carry around" scenario. So given the
capabilities of today's EVF's, I think Pentax made the right decision
here.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
Alfred Molon
Alfred Molon
nos...@yahoo.com says...
> 5 lbs is a lightweight. ;)
Try carrying 2.5Kg around your neck the whole day...
Alfred Molon
spam...@arumes.com says...
> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
How about an EVF?
Bruce
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <dc5fp5p08oqgq9hvk...@4ax.com>, docnews2011
>@gmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:30:27 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> >> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>> >> $$$ MF glass etc.
>> >
>> >68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>> >40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>>
>>
>> Eh? Hasselblad DSLRs have 40 MP or even greater resolution. For
>> example, the Hasselblad H4D is available with 40, 50 or 60 MP sensors.
>
>That's medium format.
It's a DSLR.
You said "no DSLR comes close". You were wrong.
Robert Spanjaard
> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
> spam...@arumes.com says...
>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>
> How about an EVF?
It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
That would be a very slow EVF.
Alan Browne
> In article<hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
Hasselblad H3's exceed that.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
> In article<dc5fp5p08oqgq9hvk...@4ax.com>, docnews2011
> @gmail.com says...
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:30:27 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article<hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>>>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>>>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>>>
>>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>>
>>
>> Eh? Hasselblad DSLRs have 40 MP or even greater resolution. For
>> example, the Hasselblad H4D is available with 40, 50 or 60 MP sensors.
>
> That's medium format.
They are, nonetheless, DSLR's.
step...@yahoo.com
> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
Nomen Nescio
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fd1623b-13fd-474d...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
>
also too big.
NameHere
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
>> spam...@arumes.com says...
>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>>
>> How about an EVF?
>
>It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>That would be a very slow EVF.
Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer
troll. The image relayed to an EVF does not use every photosite on the
sensor. Think about it, moron. How do they get HD video out of a sensor at
30fps? The same way they relay that data to an EVF at lower resolutions and
even higher frame-rates.
dj_nme
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spam...@arumes.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
>>> spam...@arumes.com says...
>>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>>> How about an EVF?
>> It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>> That would be a very slow EVF.
>
I'm not sure why NameHere doesn't just write "killfile me" in the first
line of his reply and save every-one the trouble.
dj_nme
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
>> spam...@arumes.com says...
>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>> How about an EVF?
>
> It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
> That would be a very slow EVF.
Even if it was a 60fps EVF, at this price-point I would be very
surprised if a 640x480 EVF could "cut the mustard".
If it were possible to stream an HD video signal from this sensor to an
HD EVF, then it might (maybe) be worth it.
Then it would be necessary to convince users to re-buy all of their
favoured FL lenses, assuming that the use of an EVF (and external HD
video stream) was taken full advantage of to shrink the mount to sensor
distance and make the camera body a lot smaller.
Rich
> In article <hn84hv$ki...@news.eternal-september.org>, boat042-
> nos...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > 5 lbs is a lightweight. ;)
>
> Try carrying 2.5Kg around your neck the whole day...
> --
What if you carry it off your shoulder?
Rich
> In article <hn7ckt$g4...@news.albasani.net>, steph...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> > huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> > $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
After what I saw a Hasselblad digital do to a Nikon D3x, I'd say if
this Pentax is even 75% of that, it will be WELL worth the $9400
asking price.
Forget FPS, live view, video and the rest of that stuff, if you want
the very best image quality (outside of high quality scans of 8x10
film) then a medium format simply has a really nice edge.
For those not interested, GRAB those old Pentax medium format lenses
now before the prices skyrocket then re-sell them.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spam...@arumes.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
>>> spam...@arumes.com says...
>>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>>>
>>> How about an EVF?
>>
>>It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>>That would be a very slow EVF.
>
>Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer
Go away, idiot troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NameHere
>NameHere wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:23:35 +0100, Robert Spanjaard <spam...@arumes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:57:30 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <81142$4b97c16d$546accd9$32...@cache70.multikabel.net>,
>>>> spam...@arumes.com says...
>>>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>>>> How about an EVF?
>>> It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>>> That would be a very slow EVF.
>>
><snip words that proved Robert Spanjaard was nothing but a
> pretend-photographer troll who doesn't even know how cameras work, as
> as well as him being nothing but a total asshole and idiot ---- again>
>
>I'm not sure why NameHere doesn't just write "killfile me" in the first
>line of his reply and save every-one the trouble.
Your killfile doesn't seem to work for you even when I use the same name,
why should I bother making your life easier for you? You'll still be a
fucking idiot either way. Nothing will ever change that.
Alfred Molon
> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
Alfred Molon
dj_...@optusnet.com.au says...
> Even if it was a 60fps EVF, at this price-point I would be very
> surprised if a 640x480 EVF could "cut the mustard".
> If it were possible to stream an HD video signal from this sensor to an
> HD EVF, then it might (maybe) be worth it.
A zoomable 800x600x3 EVF or LCD screen would suffice for precise manual
focus. Zoom 10x and you will be beyond pixel level. This technology is
already in place today in consumer DSLRs.
Alfred Molon
jo...@nowhere.invalid says...
> >Piece of crap, no Live-View, and no video mode and no built-in flash. It
> >also too big.
>
I could live with that, but live view and built-in flash are must and
video mode should be there. And of course it's too big and heavy.
They should make a micro 4/3 like camera with a huge MF sensor and
swivelable high res LCD - that would be fun.
Bowser
I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
handling camera I've ever owned.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nomen Nescio"
<thefreesp...@gmail.com> saying something like:
No game /sport /portrait /tosser /party /chipshop mode, either.
Ken Rockwank hates it, and he hasn't even tried it - so that's good
enough for me to like it.
MikeWhy
news:MPG.2602e994c...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <hn93o5$v2c$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm.
MikeWhy
> In article <c7dgp5974thau0cvf...@4ax.com>,
> jo...@nowhere.invalid says...
>> >Piece of crap, no Live-View, and no video mode and no built-in flash. It
>> >also too big.
>>
>> No face detection either. :)
>
> I could live with that, but live view and built-in flash are must and
> video mode should be there. And of course it's too big and heavy.
>
> They should make a micro 4/3 like camera with a huge MF sensor and
> swivelable high res LCD - that would be fun.
For that money, I want a drink holder and electric grip warmers. Sheesh.
RichB
Judging by your photography posted to the SIs that was money well wasted.
Matter of fact, anyone that has submitted photos for the SIs so far have
wasted their money on camera gear, when it could have been put to good use
on something of which any of them might have an inkling of aptitude. We can
rule out photography as a choice judging by everyone's posted entries.
Robert Spanjaard
>>>> Because it uses an optical viewfinder.
>>>
>>> How about an EVF?
>>
>>It's a 40 MP CCD, and there's a reason why it can only shoot at 1.1 fps.
>>That would be a very slow EVF.
>
> Again he displays the stupidity and ignorance of a pretend-photographer
> troll.
True. Too bad it's your own stupidity and ignorance.
> The image relayed to an EVF does not use every photosite on the
> sensor. Think about it, moron. How do they get HD video out of a sensor
> at 30fps? The same way they relay that data to an EVF at lower
> resolutions and even higher frame-rates.
'They' are using a different sensor design. This sensor has a maximum
output of about 7300 lines per second.
Robert Spanjaard
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "step...@yahoo.com"
> <step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not
>>>> a huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide
>>>> angle $$$ MF glass etc.
>>>
>>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>>
>>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
>>
>>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
> would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
> but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my Nikon,
> there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more film means
> higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, despite that the
> glass may, theoritically, be capable of less resolution? I'm guessing
> yes,
You guessed right. Image quality still improves as the sensor resolution
increases, even beyond the optical limits of the system.
NameHere
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:30:07 -0600, NameHere wrote:
That's their problem. There are better sensor designs in cameras that don't
depend on antiquated mechanical mirror and shutter contraptions from last
century. If they had any plans to use an EVF then they would change the
sensor design to accommodate that improvement.
It doesn't change the fact at all that you're nothing but a fucking idiot
troll that doesn't even own a camera. Proved time and time again.
Robert Spanjaard
>>> The image relayed to an EVF does not use every photosite on the
>>> sensor. Think about it, moron. How do they get HD video out of a
>>> sensor at 30fps? The same way they relay that data to an EVF at lower
>>> resolutions and even higher frame-rates.
>>
>>'They' are using a different sensor design. This sensor has a maximum
>>output of about 7300 lines per second.
>
> That's their problem. There are better sensor designs in cameras that
No, _different_ sensor designs.
> don't depend on antiquated mechanical mirror and shutter contraptions
> from last century.
At the cost of image quality. Full frame CCD's all require a mechanical
shutter. Optical TTL viewfinders all require a mirror.
> If they had any plans to use an EVF then they would
> change the sensor design to accommodate that improvement.
Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
quality to be an improvement?
> It doesn't change the fact at all that you're nothing but a fucking
> idiot troll that doesn't even own a camera. Proved time and time again.
The only proof you've ever posted is that of your stupidity.
Val Hallah
> In article <hn7ckt$g4...@news.albasani.net>, steph...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> > huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> > $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
> will be > 2Kg. Not to mention that huge&heavy mirror slapping around.
>
> Why can't a make such a large sensor camera *without* the mirror? The
> body would be much more compact and lightweight. At 2Kg it's not really
> suited as a camera to carry around with you.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site
at that price you can afford to pay someone else to carry it ;-)
Alan Browne
> In article<hn93o5$v2c$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
MF glass easily resolves 40 Mpix when the sensor is large enough.
Offhand, a 40 Mpix sensor 1.414X larger (dimensionally) than a 20 Mpix
FF sensor will resolve exactly the same detail.
So a 40 Mpix 51x34 sensor will resolve the same
as a 20 Mpix 36x24 sensor.
If the site dimensions are the same and its the same chip technology
then the S/N quality will be the same as well.
RichA
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "steph...@yahoo.com"> >> In article <hn7ckt$g4...@news.albasani.net>, steph...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
> >>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
> >>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>
> >> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
> >> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
> >A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
>
> >B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
> >highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
> would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
> but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
> Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
> film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
> despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
> resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
> that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
> had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
> handling camera I've ever owned.
Given good lens resolution, enlarging was the real kiss of death of
film images.
step...@yahoo.com
Which very few if any MF lenses can resolve.
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass
is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
It's sorta like thinking how using techpan might be useful with 35mm
film camera with really good glass, it's overkill for a 120 film camera
and no way could you ever use the resolution the film is capable of with
MF lenses.
I agree with your film based IQ assessment and still shoot MF film yet
would never bother shooting 35mm film for the reasons you stated. It's
also why I made the comment about this being a crop camera and isn't
taking advantage of the full format. And how the MP count they used was
likely done for marketing reasons, the "Holy S--- it's got 40MP" reaction.
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
> On 10-03-11 5:57 , Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article<hn93o5$v2c$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>>
>> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
>
> MF glass easily resolves 40 Mpix when the sensor is large enough.
>
> Offhand, a 40 Mpix sensor 1.414X larger (dimensionally) than a 20 Mpix
> FF sensor will resolve exactly the same detail.
>
> So a 40 Mpix 51x34 sensor will resolve the same
> as a 20 Mpix 36x24 sensor.
>
Yet most MF glass doesn't resolve as high as good 35MM glass. MF glass
might easily resolve 40MP but probably not on this size sensor..
Stephanie
Alfred Molon
spam...@arumes.com says...
> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
> quality to be an improvement?
I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view.
There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Paul Furman
If you want to get the most out of a lens' resolution, 3 pixels per
detail is pretty good.
Alfred Molon
> Yet most MF glass doesn't resolve as high as good 35MM glass. MF glass
> might easily resolve 40MP but probably not on this size sensor..
"Resolve" does not mean much. You probably mean that the MTF will be
lower. Perhaps there is a way to create new MF lenses with higher
resolution.
David J. Littleboy
Yes. Stephe is simply dead wrong here. The 5D2 (which is very close in pixel
pitch to the MF camera under discussion) is 156 pixels per mm. That's 78
lp/mm, which most decent lenses, even MF ones, will resolve nicely.
Here are two Mamiya 645 lenses doing just fine on the 5D2.
55/2.8 at f/8: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/122673675/original
80/2.8 at f/8: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/122673677/original
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bruce
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <hncj41$r2f$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> Yet most MF glass doesn't resolve as high as good 35MM glass. MF glass
>> might easily resolve 40MP but probably not on this size sensor..
>
>"Resolve" does not mean much. You probably mean that the MTF will be
>lower. Perhaps there is a way to create new MF lenses with higher
>resolution.
That's probably exactly what lies behind Pentax's new 55mm standard
lens for this camera.
It is almost certain to be a stellar performer because it needs to be.
Chris Malcolm
Every lens I've got, including the 18-250 zoom, can do that in its
central area under optimum conditions of light, contrast, and
aperture. The difference is that the best can do it in a wider range
of conditions, apertures, and image area.
--
Chris Malcolm
David J. Littleboy
The general opinion over here is that Pentax 645 glass is sharper than
Mamiya 645 glass, and as I demonstrate in my other note, Mamiya 645 glass is
more than adequate for this density of a sensor.
So I don't have a clue as to what they'd come out with a new 55mm lens.
Maybe gunching up performance wide open? Ah, I see. Pentax lenses are also
known for their horrible bokeh, and this one has a rounded diaphragm.
Chris Malcolm
> In article <hncj41$r2f$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>> Yet most MF glass doesn't resolve as high as good 35MM glass. MF glass
>> might easily resolve 40MP but probably not on this size sensor..
> "Resolve" does not mean much. You probably mean that the MTF will be
> lower. Perhaps there is a way to create new MF lenses with higher
> resolution.
Of coure there is. The equivalent of such lenses have been being made
for specialised scientific purposes for some time. But nobody will
bother making a lens which is too good for its purpose.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> My point was that pixel pitch below a certain level with most MF glass
> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
My point is that you're mistaken in thinking there is a threshold. At
one extreme of a very good lens and a small resolution sensor all the
image resolution comes from the sensor. At the other extreme of a very
large MP sensor and a poor lens all the resolution comes from the
lens. There's a point in the middle where the contributions of sensor
and lens to image resolution are equal. At that point improving lens
resolution is subject to ever diminishing returns because the sensor
exerts an increasingly larger effect on the combined resolution. Vice
versa for increasing sensor resolution.
So around what is usually taken to be the "threshold" there is an area
of wiggle room where although you get diminishing returns from
improving either lens or sensor resolution there still are returns.
If it can be done cheaply enough they're worth pursuing. And
because it's the square root of MP which is proportional to linear
resolution that gives quite a large amount of MP wiggle room around
the so-called "threshold".
What is currently considered the threshold is also in part dependent
on costs. When increasing MP keep diminishing in their contribution to
resolution (and other aspects of image quality) there comes a point
where it's simply not worth the money to push MP any higher even
though there are still some gains to be made. But as higher resolution
sensors get cheaper that point shifts.
So yesterday's MP "threshold" for APS-C, or for 35mm full frame, or
MF, will tend to keep drifting up as technology improves because
there's still some extra image quality to be got. Also sensor
technology in terms of noise, of exposure bleeding, and so on, keeps
improving. So some of the increasing MPs at each format is actually
delivering improved quality. Not all of it is pure marketing nonsense.
Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish
at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent
mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with
respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably
Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words.
--
Chris Malcolm
Michael Benveniste
> The general opinion over here is that Pentax 645 glass is sharper than
> Mamiya 645 glass, and as I demonstrate in my other note, Mamiya 645 glass
> is more than adequate for this density of a sensor.
I've never done a comparison, but I have tried two different Pentax 645
lenses on my D200 -- a 120mm f/4 Macro and a 45mm f/2.8. Like
most lenses, there was some softness wide open but each firmed up
quickly while stopping down. IIRC the D200's pixel density is about
the same as this new 645D.
So that leaves the question of how well sharpness holds up across
a 33mm x 44mm sensor. Well, my latest Pentax 645n project just
got back from the framers. It's two macros shot of a 27mm coin,
using the 120mm and an extension tube to get the needed magnification
to fill the frame. The shots hold up extremely well when printed at 20".
> So I don't have a clue as to what they'd come out with a new 55mm lens.
> Maybe gunching up performance wide open? Ah, I see. Pentax lenses are also
> known for their horrible bokeh, and this one has a rounded diaphragm.
Their 75mm f/2.8's bokeh is nothing to write home about, but I
don't think that's the main reason. Pentax needed a lens to sell with
this camera, and at least according to Pentax Canada all 645 lenses
were discontinued.
But even if they had a warehouse or two of "new old stock," none
of those lenses would be a traditional "normal" lens for this new
camera. While there was a 55mm manual focus lens in P645 mount, they
didn't make an autofocus version. The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for
the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long.
The only other obvious candidate was the 45-85mm zoom, but even
ignoring the issues of price point, I suspect that's not what the
target market was looking for.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> The general opinion over here is that Pentax 645 glass is sharper than
>> Mamiya 645 glass, and as I demonstrate in my other note, Mamiya 645 glass
>> is more than adequate for this density of a sensor.
>
> I've never done a comparison, but I have tried two different Pentax 645
> lenses on my D200 -- a 120mm f/4 Macro and a 45mm f/2.8. Like
> most lenses, there was some softness wide open but each firmed up
> quickly while stopping down. IIRC the D200's pixel density is about
> the same as this new 645D.
>
> So that leaves the question of how well sharpness holds up across
> a 33mm x 44mm sensor.
Since I have a shift adapter, I could test that as well. Doh! (Of course,
this would only be a proof of concept sort of thing since the lenses are
Mamiya not Pentax.)
>> So I don't have a clue as to what they'd come out with a new 55mm lens.
>> Maybe gunching up performance wide open? Ah, I see. Pentax lenses are
>> also known for their horrible bokeh, and this one has a rounded
>> diaphragm.
>
> Their 75mm f/2.8's bokeh is nothing to write home about, but I
> don't think that's the main reason. Pentax needed a lens to sell with
> this camera, and at least according to Pentax Canada all 645 lenses
> were discontinued.
>
> But even if they had a warehouse or two of "new old stock," none
> of those lenses would be a traditional "normal" lens for this new
> camera. While there was a 55mm manual focus lens in P645 mount, they
> didn't make an autofocus version.
Oops. There you have it: a real reason. Case closed.
> The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for
> the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long.
The 45mm would be fine here as a normal lens. I use 65mm on 6x7 and 40mm on
24x36.
Bowser
<step...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hnciu9$r2f$1...@news.albasani.net...
Here again, my experience with a special B&W file in the Hassy seems to
indicate otherwise. I shot H&W Control film a while back, which was a slow
speed but amazingly fine grained and detailed film. The Hassy lenses seemed
to keep up, but this is all anecdotal, not scientific. I shot a section of
the Maine coast once for someone who wanted a large mural for their home,
and used the Hassy with the 50mm f4 wide angle on H&W Control. The final
print was nearly 12 feet wide and was amazingly detailed. Cost a fortune,
though, since it was all chemical back then; no digital printers. And H&W
was a true pain to process and print. Paper thin negs that require great
care to print. I don't miss it, not at all.
I guess I'll wait and see how the Pentax does before complaining about pixel
stuffing, and hope that it's as good as it looks. What I really liked about
my Pentax was the very simple mechanical controls. Levers, sliders, rings,
and switches beat the hell out of menu commands. You want Av? Move the
apeture ring off the green circle. Tv? Move the shutter speed dial off the
green box. Manual? Move them both. Simple, straightforward, and accessible.
I really with today's designers would revert back to more mechanical
controls for certain camera functions. And yes, give me that damned aperture
ring back. Doesn't have to be a mechanical connection, just something on the
lens that controls the aperture.
Grouching over...
Robert Spanjaard
>> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
>> quality to be an improvement?
>
> I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view.
> There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view.
And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
Michael Benveniste
For The Love Of Dog, Montresor! I beg you, don't open up that cask of
worms. While I prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens as well, even today
the ghost of Oskar Barnack haunts the industry. I can't see Pentax/Hoya
bucking that "Conventional Wisdom."
While I though about exchanging my 45mm f/2.8 for an autofocus model,
I never got around to it. Instead, I replaced the standard focus screen
with a split-prism one. Should I decide to buy a 645D, I'll regret that
decision.
NameHere
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:34:51 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
Give it a rest, you fuckingly ignorant troll. You were revealed to be the
know-nothing troll that you are just from your assumption that all large
sensors must be slow for an EVF display. Go crawl back up your ass of
ignorance where you're happy and content.
LOL!
TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
tech-head uselessness.
I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content
itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one
defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will
determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of
bold geographic man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly
compared to a natural scene of complex foliage.
But you go ahead. Keep on living in that theoretical tiny space between
your mental-masturbation ears and relaying its ignorant findings to those
that live in and photograph the real world. The humor you provide seems
limitless.
LOL!
LOL!
TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
tech-head uselessness.
I have yet to see any of you address the properties of image content
itself. Where a misty scene can be captured with far less pixels than one
defined by myriad and complex sharp edges. Even then, the content will
determine the amount of pixels needed to capture that detail. An image of
bold geometric man-made patterns will vary in its pixel needs greatly
Robert Spanjaard
>>>> Who are 'they'? Pentax or Kodak? Why do you consider degraded image
>>>> quality to be an improvement?
>>>
>>> I don't think they need to degrade image quality to provide live view.
>>> There are so many high end DSLRs around with live view.
>>
>>And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
>>frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
>
> Give it a rest, you fuckingly ignorant troll. You were revealed to be
> the know-nothing troll that you are just from your assumption that all
> large sensors must be slow for an EVF display.
As I never posted such an assumption, the only thing being revealed here
is your stupidity. Again.
DanP
> On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish
> >at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent
> >mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with
> >respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably
> >Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words.
>
> TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
> tech-head uselessness.
See some numbers here:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/341%7C0/(appareil2)/247%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon
DanP
Alan Browne
Look at the resolution numbers (mtf) and you'll see no real difference
for comparable use prime lenses.
Hasselblad are pushing this with 60 Mpix at present - this is roughly
equal to a 25 Mpix FF. They are also doing true color sampling at every
point, though it takes 4 images to do so (very good tripod required).
So not only is the sampling resolution higher, it is higher in color
separation and accuracy while eliminating de-mosaicing defects.
Alan Browne
That's 83 lp/mm. No problem.
Paul Furman
Nikon D700 is CMOS, very high performing 12 MP with live view, though it
doesn't zoom to full 100% in live view. It's not 20 MP either <g>.
dj_nme
> In article <4b983674$0$24251$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> dj_...@optusnet.com.au says...
>> Even if it was a 60fps EVF, at this price-point I would be very
>> surprised if a 640x480 EVF could "cut the mustard".
>> If it were possible to stream an HD video signal from this sensor to an
>> HD EVF, then it might (maybe) be worth it.
>
> A zoomable 800x600x3 EVF or LCD screen would suffice for precise manual
> focus. Zoom 10x and you will be beyond pixel level. This technology is
> already in place today in consumer DSLRs.
Why do you really believe that this sort of consumer-level EVF would
pass muster on a pro-level MF digital camera?
Alfred Molon
spam...@arumes.com says...
> And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
> frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
Do some research and you will find out how many cameras with 24x36mm
sensors have live view.
Not sure why CCD vs CMOS matter. Perhaps you want to elaborate on this?
Robert Spanjaard
>> And how many of them use full frame CCD's? How do you switch from full
>> frame CCD to CMOS without losing image quality?
>
> Do some research and you will find out how many cameras with 24x36mm
> sensors have live view.
>
> Not sure why CCD vs CMOS matter. Perhaps you want to elaborate on this?
There's enough elaboration available on the net. You're telling me to do
some research, but you don't care to do some yourself. You don't even
understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.
step...@yahoo.com
So you are talking about MF lenses?
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
> On 10-03-12 0:23 , step...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 10-03-11 5:57 , Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> In article<hn93o5$v2c$2...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does
>>>>> resolve as
>>>>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>>>>
>>>> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
>>>
>>> MF glass easily resolves 40 Mpix when the sensor is large enough.
>>>
>>> Offhand, a 40 Mpix sensor 1.414X larger (dimensionally) than a 20 Mpix
>>> FF sensor will resolve exactly the same detail.
>>>
>>> So a 40 Mpix 51x34 sensor will resolve the same
>>> as a 20 Mpix 36x24 sensor.
>>>
>>
>> Yet most MF glass doesn't resolve as high as good 35MM glass. MF glass
>> might easily resolve 40MP but probably not on this size sensor..
>
> Look at the resolution numbers (mtf) and you'll see no real difference
> for comparable use prime lenses.
>
Whose numbers are you looking at?
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
>
>
> <step...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> is pointless other than for marketing reasons. And is likely to have a
>> threshold different from what could be useful with 35mm based Dslrs.
>> It's sorta like thinking how using techpan might be useful with 35mm
>> film camera with really good glass, it's overkill for a 120 film
>> camera and no way could you ever use the resolution the film is
>> capable of with MF lenses.
>
> Here again, my experience with a special B&W file in the Hassy seems to
> indicate otherwise.
I'd agree most blad optics don't fit this statement. But this isn't a
blad camera :-)
Stephanie
b...@myhouse.com
>Talk about crushing the price barrier in the medium format!!
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
cheaper than a Hasselhofblad!
Alfred Molon
spam...@arumes.com says...
> You don't even
> understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.
Nope, you are not expressing yourself clearly.
There are full frame transfer and interline transfer CCDs, but you are
talking about "full frame CCD", which is imprecise.
With "full frame" cameras people usually refer to cameras with 24x36mm
sensors. See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
Alfred Molon
> No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
> those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
>
> Stephanie
What MTF do those lp numbers refer to in the test?
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>> The 45mm lens is a bit too wide for
>>> the role (35mm equivalent of a 36mm lens), and the 75mm a bit long.
>>
>> The 45mm would be fine here as a normal lens. I use 65mm on 6x7 and 40mm
>> on 24x36.
>
>
> For The Love Of Dog, Montresor! I beg you, don't open up that cask of
> worms. While I prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens as well, even today
> the ghost of Oskar Barnack haunts the industry. I can't see Pentax/Hoya
> bucking that "Conventional Wisdom."
I don't think it was Oskar's fault. The "normal" lens is the widest lens you
can make easily with the Triotar, Tessar, and Planar sorts of designs, and
any longer lens would require a larger camera. This conventional wisdom was
foisted on us by lazy camera designers well before 1912. (The Kodak Brownie
was 1900 and the Planar design was early 1890s, for example.)
> While I though about exchanging my 45mm f/2.8 for an autofocus model,
> I never got around to it. Instead, I replaced the standard focus screen
> with a split-prism one. Should I decide to buy a 645D, I'll regret that
> decision.
Doesn't the AF system beep at you when you use MF lenses on the AF versions
of the Pentax 645?
As in another note, I'm using mostly MF lenses on the 5D2. The extremely
accurate distance scale makes testing for and setting acceptable hyperfocal
distances much easier. I took the 40/2.0 out for some snapshot shooting the
other day, and had no trouble whatsoever. Sure, I had to work marginally
harder, but even with AF, I think about where I want the plane of optimal
focus to be, look for something that the AF will work with, and do the
focus/recompose drill. The only difference with MF is that I have to crank
the focus ring at one point in the process until the AF system beeps. (And
while people complain about the 5D2 AF system, the center AF point is as
good as any AF point in any camera, and being a cross sensor, will focus on
things that you'd have to twist the camera to focus with a split image prism
or rangefinder.)
David J. Littleboy
"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <hnehls$rio$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
>> those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
>>
>> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
>>
>> Stephanie
>
> What MTF do those lp numbers refer to in the test?
That page is one of my favorites, and represents the results of a lot of
hard, precise, carefully done work. It's incredibly useful for comparing MF
film systems. (Bottom line: Mamiya 7 at f/11.)
But it's not clear what his criterion for OK/NG is when stating lp/mm
numbers.
One could, however, argue that they are overly optimistic and correspond to
a uselessly low MTF, since he's shooting a high contrast target and looking
for a barely detectable response. (And the film used has an MTF50 at 100
lp/mm, so he really can see the numbers he reports for the Mamiya 7 lenses.)
The bottom line, of course, is that the Mamiya 645 lenses I tested produce
sharp images on the 5D2 in a very quick and dirty (handheld, f/8, ISO 800)
test, so there really isn't a problem.
FWIW, from looking at diffraction degradation as lenses are stopped down, I
find that as long as your lens projects an image with an MTF of 50% at 2/3
or 3/4 of the Nyquist frequency, you'll be very happy with the images that
pop up on your screen or appear in your prints.
Rich
> >>>news:MPG.2602e994c...@news.supernews.com...
> >>>> In article <hn93o5$v2...@news.albasani.net>, steph...@yahoo.com says...
> >>>>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does
> >>>>> resolve as
> >>>>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> >>>> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?
>
> >>> 6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm.
>
> >> Which very few if any MF lenses can resolve.
>
> > That's 83 lp/mm. No problem.
>
> No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
> those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
>
> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
>
> Stephanie
Film is not the proper test medium these days for lenses.
step...@yahoo.com
LOL!!
Stephanie
step...@yahoo.com
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <hnehls$rio$1...@news.albasani.net>, step...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> No problem? First test I pulled up show only REALLY good ones can pull
>>> those types of numbers at optimal settings. Most don't
>>>
>>> http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>> What MTF do those lp numbers refer to in the test?
>
> That page is one of my favorites, and represents the results of a lot of
> hard, precise, carefully done work. It's incredibly useful for comparing MF
> film systems. (Bottom line: Mamiya 7 at f/11.)
>
> But it's not clear what his criterion for OK/NG is when stating lp/mm
> numbers.
>
> One could, however, argue that they are overly optimistic and correspond to
> a uselessly low MTF, since he's shooting a high contrast target and looking
> for a barely detectable response. (And the film used has an MTF50 at 100
> lp/mm, so he really can see the numbers he reports for the Mamiya 7 lenses.)
So then look at the SLR 55mm lens numbers compared, ~1/2 this resolution.
>
> The bottom line, of course, is that the Mamiya 645 lenses I tested produce
> sharp images on the 5D2 in a very quick and dirty (handheld, f/8, ISO 800)
> test, so there really isn't a problem.
>
So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a
different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel
density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe
this :-)
Stephanie
David J. Littleboy
<step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a
> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel
> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe
> this :-)
It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF
lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable
problems are silly, unfounded BS. And, yes, showing that resolution over the
center 24x36mm of the frame for non-superwides is fully adequate proof: the
33x44 crop (from 46 x 56) is plenty to avoid any corners problems I've ever
seen in any lens.
Robert Spanjaard
> In article <e560e$4b9ab539$546accd9$13...@cache90.multikabel.net>,
> spam...@arumes.com says...
>> You don't even
>> understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.
>
> Nope, you are not expressing yourself clearly.
>
> There are full frame transfer and interline transfer CCDs, but you are
> talking about "full frame CCD", which is imprecise.
>
> With "full frame" cameras people usually refer to cameras with 24x36mm
> sensors. See here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device#Architecture
Michael Benveniste
> I don't think it was Oskar's fault. The "normal" lens is the widest lens
> you can make easily with the Triotar, Tessar, and Planar sorts of
> designs, and any longer lens would require a larger camera.
The histories I've read stated that when Oskar was building
the first fixed lens models, he chose 5cm because he felt
that he couldn't get enough sharpness out of a shorter lens.
But when it came time to sell interchangeable lens cameras,
he stuck with 50mm as the "kit" lens even though that was
no longer the case.
If I remember correctly, the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar and the 35mm f/3.5
Elmar came in 1931 or 1932. Both are 4-element, 3-group designs.
I know that Zeiss made a 40mm Tessar and a 45mm f/2 Planar,
and Nikon's made a couple of 45mm Tessar-style lenses for 35mm
as well.
> Doesn't the AF system beep at you when you use MF lenses on the AF
> versions of the Pentax 645?
My 645n can beep, but I still find a prism viewfinder easier for
manual focus. I'm convinced this is an area of photography
where each person has to work out what's best for themselves.
I do know that KatzEye has found a very nice niche business
adding prism finders to various dSLR's.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Amo conventum instituti. -- Artifex Hannibal
step...@yahoo.com
> <step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a
>> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel
>> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe
>> this :-)
>
> It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF
> lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable
> problems are silly, unfounded BS.
My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these
lenses have. I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a
30MP version of this same crop camera. You might be hard pressed to see
improvement over a 20MP version. Did I say anywhere this would be a
"unsurmountable problem"? What I posted was this MP density was likely
chosen for marketing reasons rather than any performance concerns.
Clearly you can use a sensor/film that is higher resolution than the
lens without problems as far as resolution.
Stephanie
David J. Littleboy
<step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> <step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on a
>>> different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this pixel
>>> density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you believe
>>> this :-)
>>
>> It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with MF
>> lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of unsurmountable
>> problems are silly, unfounded BS.
>
> My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these
> lenses have.
That's a stupid claim, then. But it wasn't your claim: you were clearly
claiming that the resolution of MF lenses wasn't adequate. And that's dead
wrong.
> I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a 30MP version of
> this same crop camera.
That's bad logic. Think about it: your "you could[n't] see any difference"
isn't transitive. Why bother with 30MP when you can't see the difference
between 30MP and 24MP. Why bother with 24MP when you can't see the
difference with 20MP. Do this a few more times, and 1 pixel will be all you
need.
> You might be hard pressed to see improvement over a 20MP version.
Here you are dead wrong. A doubling of MP count represents a 40% increase in
linear resolution and that is very significant. Reality check: people shoot
4x5 and larger for good reason. But we're still not up to 4x5 and larger
resolution levels.
> Did I say anywhere this would be a "unsurmountable problem"?
Yes. You've been squawking that MF lenses aren't good enough, and you are
dead wrong. Go back and read what you wrote.
> What I posted was this MP density was likely chosen for marketing reasons
> rather than any performance concerns.
It was chosen because there are professional photographers who need this
performance. This is a market of professionals who know what they are doing
and don't waste their money on equipment that isn't needed, not amateurs who
never print larger than A4.
> Clearly you can use a sensor/film that is higher resolution than the lens
> without problems as far as resolution.
But you still haven't realized that 40MP in a 33x44mm sensor isn't higher
resolution than the lens. In fact, it's a very good match for 645 lenses.
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Benveniste" <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:56:27 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> Doesn't the AF system beep at you when you use MF lenses on the AF
>> versions of the Pentax 645?
>
> My 645n can beep, but I still find a prism viewfinder easier for
> manual focus. I'm convinced this is an area of photography
> where each person has to work out what's best for themselves.
Good point. I ran into a bloke with a split image in a 20D, and it worked
really well. My Mamiya 7's rangefinder is hard to use, and the Fuji GS645S,
which is otherwise a great camera, is a bear to focus.
> I do know that KatzEye has found a very nice niche business
> adding prism finders to various dSLR's.
Grumble: they don't make one for the 5D or 5D2. I'd try it if they did.
MikeWhy
You're doing a great job, Stephanie. Heck, you browbeat me right out of
wasting my $10k with your very first post. For that, I thank you. I didn't
want to be bothered by real information anyway. Forget thesse guys. They're
too enamored of experience and technical expertise, not worthy of your
efforts. Testing! Phhhpt. What's that?
David J. Littleboy
"MikeWhy" <boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You're doing a great job, Stephanie. Heck, you browbeat me right out of
> wasting my $10k with your very first post. For that, I thank you. I didn't
> want to be bothered by real information anyway. Forget thesse guys.
> They're too enamored of experience and technical expertise, not worthy of
> your efforts. Testing! Phhhpt. What's that?
Really. Alan got into a snarkfest with this person a few days ago, and I
thought to drop him a note pointing out he was wasting his time. I need to
take my own advice...
Alfred Molon
dj_...@optusnet.com.au says...
> Why do you really believe that this sort of consumer-level EVF would
> pass muster on a pro-level MF digital camera?
Why not? It's 800x600x3 and zoomable.
Alfred Molon
spam...@arumes.com says...
frame CCD". Lern to express yourself precisely.
Robert Spanjaard
> In article <4f97e$4b9b148d$546accd9$31...@cache90.multikabel.net>,
> spam...@arumes.com says...
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:47:17 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>
>> > In article <e560e$4b9ab539$546accd9$13...@cache90.multikabel.net>,
>> > spam...@arumes.com says...
>> >> You don't even
>> >> understand what the term "full frame CCD" refers to.
>> >
>> > Nope, you are not expressing yourself clearly.
>> >
>> > There are full frame transfer and interline transfer CCDs, but you
>> > are talking about "full frame CCD", which is imprecise.
>> >
>> > With "full frame" cameras people usually refer to cameras with
>> > 24x36mm sensors. See here
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device#Architecture
>
> Also on that page they use the term "frame transfer" -
Which is not the same type of CCD as "full frame".
> you wrote "full frame CCD".
Because that's exactly what I was writing about.
> Lern to express yourself precisely.
I did.
Alan Browne
Those numbers are not a hard stop. The world does not go blank at those
points.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
Alan Browne
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> <step...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So shooting a hand held quick test of the very center of the lens on
>>> a different camera proves this Pentax can resolve enough for this
>>> pixel density to be useful beyond marketing numbers? OK, I'm sure you
>>> believe this :-)
>>
>> It clearly shows that there's no problem producing sharp images with
>> MF lenses at that pixel density, and that your claims of
>> unsurmountable problems are silly, unfounded BS.
>
> My only claim was this MP density isn't needed at the resolution these
> lenses have. I'd be shocked if you could see any difference in say a
> 30MP version of this same crop camera. You might be hard pressed to see
> improvement over a 20MP version.
Since that's only a 22% resolution increase, yes.
Alan Browne
I'm a bad example, I know.