Reading mode: Light Dark

Is MF Digital Dead AKA Will the SD1 equal or exceed MF

Go to last post
rick decker said:
Looks to me like the SD1 will give MF a run for its money. Any comments?
Click to expand...
Yes, it'll give MF a run for it's money, but it's not time to put away those 120 film rolls just yet. You can easily extract 100MP worth of information from a 6x6, and the SD1 in real terms is probably closer to something like 30MP of true resolution. Give it a few more years, and let's see what a 100MP (33MP x 3) FF Foveon will do to the digital back market.
 
It's called CCD. CCD requires more power - less batter life - but produces a significant improvement in DR over CMOS. If you look at high resolution, high dynamic range sensors for say Kodak, Fairchild Imaging, etc. - they are all CCD because while CMOS has some advantages - dynamic range is not one of them.
Paulo Ferreira said:
Hassy and Leaf actually get much more "punch" from their sensors than any Nikon or Canon who are trailing a couple of stops in DR behind. There is still at least 1.5 stops to be gained in FX and DX that are simply not there. Maybe Hassy/Leaf know some tricks that they don't want to share...
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
 
Truman Prevatt said:
Actually that is not quite true. Some offer the option to insert an AA filter if you desire.
Click to expand...
That option used to be common in the days of 16 & 22MP backs but I've not seen it with the latest 40+ MP backs. It could still be available, just not well advertised.

--
Erik
 
tammons said:
An RB is not a bad camera but if you really want digital there are moderately priced 35mm DSLR cameras out there that can match an RB67 film scan and there are also better MF film cameras then the RB.

The real issue is scanners. Don't think you can buy a v700 for $500 and get the most out of medium format. You need a Nikon 9000 or a drum scanner. Besides MF film is slow cumbersome and expensive. A V700 will do if you want to enlarge smaller sizes, but the dmax is very limited and that is an issue with slide film, and you have to way overscan. Still there is nothing else out there that will do what a V700 will at that level for $500. Its just not a professional level scanner.

An A850 for less that $2000 will run rings around a RB in time spent and almost match the resolution. I have had 2 RBs and 2 RZs and a variety of lenses and none of them were sharp enough to merit anything over a 2000 dpi drum scan.
The SD1 will most likely match or beat the A850.

I will say a 65mm floating element lens in an RZ is much sharper but never found one at a decent price.

A 2000 dpi drum scan of 670 film produces about 24mp.

If you are still set on medium format color film then I would suggest to buy the best and sharpest medium format film camera and scanner you can afford and shoot E100G.

The sharpest MF cameras I owned that were actually worth a 4000 dpi scan were the Mamiya 6 and 7 and the Rollei 6008I with 80mm lens.

All stunning performers and true 35mm type lens resolutions, especially the Rollei.

There are a few others too hassy etc. Never owned a hassy though.

Buy a Rollei 6008I and add a few lenses to the cost of a Nikon 9000 and you will be at about $5000+.

All that said, I do prefer film for B+W, but still to get the highest resolution and sharpest lenses in medium format it takes a lot of $
justahappysnapper said:
I was drooling over the new Pentax 645D & Hasslebald H4D, then i realised they just use 1 layer Beyer.

I did a bit more googling & found in 2011, Hassleblad are hoping to move away from Beyer limitations by introduction their "multishot" which is still 1 layer but captures colour information more like Foveon.

I think i will save myself £10k & get a film Mamiya RB67 Pro.
I hope one day Sigma can bring out an MF Foveon.
Mebe Hassleblad should talk to Sigma about licensing Foveon.
Meanwhile the SD1 will give the depth only a 3 layer sensor can give.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Im not good enough to use a film MF tbh.

I do feel, see that Bayer, regardless of 40MP, 60MP MF does have a thinness to its images, due to being a 1 layer ... would be failrly easy to see when taking a photo of the same scene with a 3 layer or film.

I do like depth and my £18 Pentax Espio mini (35mm film) would give me more depth than £8K Pentax 645D MF, though not the detail.

I hope the MF brands do move to a 3 layer.
I hope Sigma do bring out a Foveon MF.
 
If you are correct about this "thinness" idea, you should have no difficulty distinguishing the Foveon vs bayer shots in my whispering cat article.

Have a go: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx-2.htm
justahappysnapper said:
tammons said:
An RB is not a bad camera but if you really want digital there are moderately priced 35mm DSLR cameras out there that can match an RB67 film scan and there are also better MF film cameras then the RB.

The real issue is scanners. Don't think you can buy a v700 for $500 and get the most out of medium format. You need a Nikon 9000 or a drum scanner. Besides MF film is slow cumbersome and expensive. A V700 will do if you want to enlarge smaller sizes, but the dmax is very limited and that is an issue with slide film, and you have to way overscan. Still there is nothing else out there that will do what a V700 will at that level for $500. Its just not a professional level scanner.

An A850 for less that $2000 will run rings around a RB in time spent and almost match the resolution. I have had 2 RBs and 2 RZs and a variety of lenses and none of them were sharp enough to merit anything over a 2000 dpi drum scan.
The SD1 will most likely match or beat the A850.

I will say a 65mm floating element lens in an RZ is much sharper but never found one at a decent price.

A 2000 dpi drum scan of 670 film produces about 24mp.

If you are still set on medium format color film then I would suggest to buy the best and sharpest medium format film camera and scanner you can afford and shoot E100G.

The sharpest MF cameras I owned that were actually worth a 4000 dpi scan were the Mamiya 6 and 7 and the Rollei 6008I with 80mm lens.

All stunning performers and true 35mm type lens resolutions, especially the Rollei.

There are a few others too hassy etc. Never owned a hassy though.

Buy a Rollei 6008I and add a few lenses to the cost of a Nikon 9000 and you will be at about $5000+.

All that said, I do prefer film for B+W, but still to get the highest resolution and sharpest lenses in medium format it takes a lot of $
justahappysnapper said:
I was drooling over the new Pentax 645D & Hasslebald H4D, then i realised they just use 1 layer Beyer.

I did a bit more googling & found in 2011, Hassleblad are hoping to move away from Beyer limitations by introduction their "multishot" which is still 1 layer but captures colour information more like Foveon.

I think i will save myself £10k & get a film Mamiya RB67 Pro.
I hope one day Sigma can bring out an MF Foveon.
Mebe Hassleblad should talk to Sigma about licensing Foveon.
Meanwhile the SD1 will give the depth only a 3 layer sensor can give.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Im not good enough to use a film MF tbh.

I do feel, see that Bayer, regardless of 40MP, 60MP MF does have a thinness to its images, due to being a 1 layer ... would be failrly easy to see when taking a photo of the same scene with a 3 layer or film.

I do like depth and my £18 Pentax Espio mini (35mm film) would give me more depth than £8K Pentax 645D MF, though not the detail.

I hope the MF brands do move to a 3 layer.
I hope Sigma do bring out a Foveon MF.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
That may be. I haven't looked in awhile. In reality at 40+ MP - there is very little reason for an AA filter. From the shots I have seen from the Leica M9 even at 18 MP on a 135 format sensor - there is little need.
Erik Magnuson said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Actually that is not quite true. Some offer the option to insert an AA filter if you desire.
Click to expand...
That option used to be common in the days of 16 & 22MP backs but I've not seen it with the latest 40+ MP backs. It could still be available, just not well advertised.

--
Erik
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
 
They bank at different institutions.
rick decker said:
Looks to me like the SD1 will give MF a run for its money. Any comments?

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
Click to expand...
--
Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com

Never look down to test the ground before taking your
next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far
horizon will find the right road.

Dag Hammarskjold

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
 
From the stuff I've read on earlier Foveon cameras, it seems like people were reporting a foveon array as giving them 2 - 2.5x the resolution of a bayer one.

That's pretty darn impressive in my book, if the case, then we're talking real world res in the 30-38 MP range. And, with the crop, yer also now using only the sweet spot of the lens, and you get all the color advantages to boot. This may indeed be a medium format killer. If priced around 3 grand, this easily becomes the 5dII style best bang for buck.
 
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
 
You are allways such a wonderfull ray of sunshine :)
NOT !!

I guess you feel its your task to prevent all of us happy idiots from being too happy :)
Truman Prevatt said:
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.naturephotos.dk/NaturePhotos_ejergalleri.php?menu=3&_Ejer=57

 
Truman Prevatt said:
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.
Click to expand...
The new sensor has a resolution of 100 LPM. f16 has a free air resolution of 116 LPM (1/1800 for green light). How often do you shoot past f16?
 
Actually quite often. If you are shooting a landscape and want good control of the depth of field around your focal plane - you need to. On medium and large format I often shoot at f22 or f32 to isolate a subject in focus.
mike earussi said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.
Click to expand...
The new sensor has a resolution of 100 LPM. f16 has a free air resolution of 116 LPM (1/1800 for green light). How often do you shoot past f16?
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
 
Diffraction limited or not, there is no harm in oversampling. And it is the resolution of the compete system that matters. Packing more pixels may not get much gain but it will likely bring some.
Truman Prevatt said:
Actually quite often. If you are shooting a landscape and want good control of the depth of field around your focal plane - you need to. On medium and large format I often shoot at f22 or f32 to isolate a subject in focus.
mike earussi said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.
Click to expand...
The new sensor has a resolution of 100 LPM. f16 has a free air resolution of 116 LPM (1/1800 for green light). How often do you shoot past f16?
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
Truman Prevatt said:
Actually quite often. If you are shooting a landscape and want good control of the depth of field around your focal plane - you need to. On medium and large format I often shoot at f22 or f32 to isolate a subject in focus.
Click to expand...
Yes but DOF is much smaller on MF so you wont have to use 22 on a APS-c sized -sensor .. maybe something like f13 will get you the same dof as f 22 on a MF.
Truman Prevatt said:
mike earussi said:
Truman Prevatt said:
Given diffraction limitations it may turn out somewhat silly to put that many Foveon pixels on a ASP-C sensor. The medium format cameras and the 135 format cameras provide the advantage of larger sensor area. If the SD1 ends up being diffraction limited which if it is a great as the foveonites are proclaiming - it will be a waste of pixels.

We will know in one most likely two years when we finally see it.
Click to expand...
The new sensor has a resolution of 100 LPM. f16 has a free air resolution of 116 LPM (1/1800 for green light). How often do you shoot past f16?
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.naturephotos.dk/NaturePhotos_ejergalleri.php?menu=3&_Ejer=57

 
mike earussi said:
The new sensor has a resolution of 100 LPM. f16 has a free air resolution of 116 LPM (1/1800 for green light). How often do you shoot past f16?
Click to expand...
Diffraction begins to lower edge/system contrast well before the Rayleigh criteria - which is when the contrast is essentially 0. Also remember:
  • what makes Foveon mages look more detailed is the aliasing of detail at spacial frequencies higher than 100 LPM.
  • Red diffraction is about 50% more than green. Because red light is detected by all 3 layers, this will increase color separation issues even for the top layer
While more pixels never hurts total system resolution, you are not likely to get the qualities many consider essential to the Foveon look from f/16 on this sensor. The good news is that you won't get aliasing either.

--
Erik
 
DMillier said:
If you are correct about this "thinness" idea, you should have no difficulty distinguishing the Foveon vs bayer shots in my whispering cat article.

Have a go: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx-2.htm
justahappysnapper said:
Im not good enough to use a film MF tbh.

I do feel, see that Bayer, regardless of 40MP, 60MP MF does have a thinness to its images, due to being a 1 layer ... would be failrly easy to see when taking a photo of the same scene with a 3 layer or film.

I do like depth and my £18 Pentax Espio mini (35mm film) would give me more depth than £8K Pentax 645D MF, though not the detail.

I hope the MF brands do move to a 3 layer.
I hope Sigma do bring out a Foveon MF.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
Click to expand...
Hi

I'm afraid without seeing the subject with my own eyes, i can't tell on any image online whether it is Bayer or Foveon.

BUT i can tell straightaway when i have seen the subject with my own eyes and then taken photos of it with Bayer & Foveon (although this can depend on the environmental condition, subject, distance to subject).

That's why i feel people who have Bayer cameras, if they shot the same subject also with a Foveon, they could mebe hopefully see what i mean by thinness of a 1 layer Bayer and depth of a 3 layer like Foveon.

I would love to have a digital MF, the Pentax 645D was so tempting until i realised it's just a 1 layer Bayer, and my £18 p&s pentax espio mini would give me the depth & truism the 645D couldn't.

I hope in this decade we do see digital MF with 3 layer sensors.
 
I'm afraid to say this makes no sense.

If I present someone with two pictures and they are unable to tell them apart even after close scrutiny, they are unable to tell the apart. What possible difference can it make looking at the original scene. Does that suddenly magically improve discrimminator ability? Even if it did, it means that the bayer shots don't look "thin" to you unless you have compared both the bayer and the foveon to the original scene. Which means that unless you have:

1. Visited a scene and examined it carefully with your own eyes
2. Compared the live view to a foveon print
3. Compared the live view to a bayer print
4. Compared the bayer and foveon prints then both against the live view

then you have not seen that thinness/thickness issue.

My judgement is that is unlikely you have done those things so unless you can do better with your explanation I think the odds are strongly that the best thing to do is file your observations under the heading "Nonsense".

Actually, it means one other thing: as long as you don't compare the results against the live subject, you have no problem with Bayer images - which means you have no problem with any bayer image that you haven't taken yourself.

Sorry about that, no personal offence is intended, we all guilty of this kind of thing from time to time.
justahappysnapper said:
DMillier said:
If you are correct about this "thinness" idea, you should have no difficulty distinguishing the Foveon vs bayer shots in my whispering cat article.

Have a go: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx-2.htm
justahappysnapper said:
Im not good enough to use a film MF tbh.

I do feel, see that Bayer, regardless of 40MP, 60MP MF does have a thinness to its images, due to being a 1 layer ... would be failrly easy to see when taking a photo of the same scene with a 3 layer or film.

I do like depth and my £18 Pentax Espio mini (35mm film) would give me more depth than £8K Pentax 645D MF, though not the detail.

I hope the MF brands do move to a 3 layer.
I hope Sigma do bring out a Foveon MF.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
Click to expand...
Hi

I'm afraid without seeing the subject with my own eyes, i can't tell on any image online whether it is Bayer or Foveon.

BUT i can tell straightaway when i have seen the subject with my own eyes and then taken photos of it with Bayer & Foveon (although this can depend on the environmental condition, subject, distance to subject).

That's why i feel people who have Bayer cameras, if they shot the same subject also with a Foveon, they could mebe hopefully see what i mean by thinness of a 1 layer Bayer and depth of a 3 layer like Foveon.

I would love to have a digital MF, the Pentax 645D was so tempting until i realised it's just a 1 layer Bayer, and my £18 p&s pentax espio mini would give me the depth & truism the 645D couldn't.

I hope in this decade we do see digital MF with 3 layer sensors.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top