Why all these Medium formats?

I don't think I need to prove anything to you. At least I come from experience unlike your theoretical rhetoric.

If you want examples of action Just look back at the old Sports Illustrated basketball photos behind the basket. Those were taken Hasselblad cameras. How do I know? I used to watch them change the film backs between periods. Of course you'll come up with an excuse how it isn't appropriate, so why bother? To argue for argument sake?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/
https://nathantwong.wordpress.com/
Always have a camera with you and make sure you use it.

nathantw said:

I don't think I need to prove anything to you. At least I come from experience unlike your theoretical rhetoric.

If you want examples of action Just look back at the old Sports Illustrated basketball photos behind the basket. Those were taken Hasselblad cameras. How do I know? I used to watch them change the film backs between periods. Of course you'll come up with an excuse how it isn't appropriate, so why bother? To argue for argument sake?

Click to expand...

I think we're getting away from the point.

When asked earlier in the thread what it was that he can't do with FX, his answer was "low-light birding/BIF".

Notwithstanding your examples and your past experience watching MF film shooters, medium format digital is far from being the optimum format for small wildlife, whether in flight or not. Weight, size, cost and the lack of affordable long lenses makes it a worse bet for such usage than FX (or even DX).

briantilley said:

nathantw said:

I don't think I need to prove anything to you. At least I come from experience unlike your theoretical rhetoric.

If you want examples of action Just look back at the old Sports Illustrated basketball photos behind the basket. Those were taken Hasselblad cameras. How do I know? I used to watch them change the film backs between periods. Of course you'll come up with an excuse how it isn't appropriate, so why bother? To argue for argument sake?

Click to expand...

I think we're getting away from the point.

When asked earlier in the thread what it was that he can't do with FX, his answer was "low-light birding/BIF".

Notwithstanding your examples and your past experience watching MF film shooters, medium format digital is far from being the optimum format for small wildlife, whether in flight or not. Weight, size, cost and the lack of affordable long lenses makes it a worse bet for such usage than FX (or even DX).

Click to expand...

Exactly. As I said to him, he missed the point by miles...

nathantw said:

I don't think I need to prove anything to you. At least I come from experience unlike your theoretical rhetoric.

If you want examples of action Just look back at the old Sports Illustrated basketball photos behind the basket. Those were taken Hasselblad cameras. How do I know? I used to watch them change the film backs between periods. Of course you'll come up with an excuse how it isn't appropriate, so why bother? To argue for argument sake?

Click to expand...

Again, it was not a question if it is possible to use it or not, but if it was optimal or not and what exactly are the benefits of using MF. You failed to explain that and failed to prove it.

Also, you posted some example and linked to your album so indeed you made an effort to prove something, but don't know what. Those examples are NOT supporting your own comments, quite the opposite, they support what people in this thread are trying to tell you. No, you don't have to prove anything to me, but if you argue for a thing and post pictures to prove your points than you better put up some prove connected to the subject otherwise your arguments become pretty lame, especially now that you even claim having "experience"... Experience of what? Still images and images we all agree MF is OK for?

vbuhay said:

Sure enough at the Photokina 2018, several medium format has been announced on top of the increasingly crowded medium format markets.

Click to expand...

Nothing has changed and the market is not "more crowded".

Lecia announced an updated S3. A body in a system that's been around for a decade.

Fuji, as expected, announced a RF version and a 100MP version of their first MF body.

Everyone launched some lenses, as expected in these new systems.

Of course, this is a healthy sign that the existing MF systems continue to develop and grow.

The only new entrant in MF for a decade has been Fuji.

Conversely, FX got more crowded with 3 new systems launched - Nikon Z, Canon RF, Panasonic L.

vbuhay said:

A few weeks ago I started a thread which asked , is this the end of the Full frame Format? Sure enough at the Photokina 2018, several medium format has been announced on top of the increasingly crowded medium format markets.... I am a current FF DSLR user and I am increasingly yearning for higher DR. I was hoping for the BSI sensors to bring that to us, but it seems that it is not happening....How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology before we get there ... or should we be thinking and preparing for the Medium Frame onslaught? Is Nikon or Canon going in that direction?

Click to expand...

We should have something better than CMOS. But as all new and/or trendy photographers need video in their photocameras, don't dream of such new material before many many years.

MILC is not the right path to get our hands onto better sensor materials before ages. Movie technology was always trailing behind still photography sensor tech, as movie system have ultimate needs for really fast sensor tech.

As now MILC cameras share the same constraints as moviecam, don't count on innovation from the sensor material point of view until it reachs the cinecam realm.

vbuhay said:

...How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology

Click to expand...

From a DR and noise perspective, almost none. I think the next big advance will be affordable global shutters.

rumple said:

vbuhay said:

...How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology

Click to expand...

From a DR and noise perspective, almost none. I think the next big advance will be affordable global shutters.

Click to expand...

So, global shutter is quasi useless innovation for still photography, until you need more than 10fps... So I dare to say global shutter is still a useless feature from a still photography point of view. (I already hear loud moaning coming from there).

Gon0S said:

rumple said:

vbuhay said:

...How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology

Click to expand...

From a DR and noise perspective, almost none. I think the next big advance will be affordable global shutters.

Click to expand...

So, global shutter is quasi useless innovation for still photography, until you need more than 10fps... So I dare to say global shutter is still a useless feature from a still photography point of view. (I already hear loud moaning coming from there).

Click to expand...

Anyone using flash, who wants / needs a higher x-sync, would suggest that your statement is incorrect.

Global shutters will eliminate the need for, and undesirable side-effects of, HSS. Not "quasi useless".

Global shutters also eliminate focal plane shutter distortion, seen quite clearly (and in exaggerated form, it's a very old camera), here. Highly non-useless for fast-moving objects:





And, global shutters could make mechanical shutters obsolete. Eliminating a significant source of failure for still photography.





--
"THINK" - Watson

rumple said:

Gon0S said:

rumple said:

vbuhay said:

...How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology

Click to expand...

From a DR and noise perspective, almost none. I think the next big advance will be affordable global shutters.

Click to expand...

So, global shutter is quasi useless innovation for still photography, until you need more than 10fps... So I dare to say global shutter is still a useless feature from a still photography point of view. (I already hear loud moaning coming from there).

Click to expand...

Anyone using flash, who wants / needs a higher x-sync, would suggest that your statement is incorrect.

Global shutters will eliminate the need for, and undesirable side-effects of, HSS. Not "quasi useless".

Global shutters also eliminate focal plane shutter distortion, seen quite clearly (and in exaggerated form, it's a very old camera), here. Highly non-useless for fast-moving objects:

And, global shutters could make mechanical shutters obsolete. Eliminating a significant source of failure for still photography.

Click to expand...

This shot is quite funny. Don't you have a more recent shot proving actual mechanical shutter are too slow ?

As you seem to be aware of this problem, I just want to know which technology managed to get that left shot ? mechanic focal plane shutter ? leaf shutter ? A9 electronic shutter ?



Nevertheless, I agree a faster X-sync would be a bless, I doubt we'll global shutter of high photosites count sensors be amazing before a long time... I may be wrong of course, as I don't live with a SONY sensor designer.

Gon0S said:

rumple said:

Gon0S said:

rumple said:

vbuhay said:

...How much more advancement in Full Frame sensor technology

Click to expand...

From a DR and noise perspective, almost none. I think the next big advance will be affordable global shutters.

Click to expand...

So, global shutter is quasi useless innovation for still photography, until you need more than 10fps... So I dare to say global shutter is still a useless feature from a still photography point of view. (I already hear loud moaning coming from there).

Click to expand...

Anyone using flash, who wants / needs a higher x-sync, would suggest that your statement is incorrect.

Global shutters will eliminate the need for, and undesirable side-effects of, HSS. Not "quasi useless".

Global shutters also eliminate focal plane shutter distortion, seen quite clearly (and in exaggerated form, it's a very old camera), here. Highly non-useless for fast-moving objects:

And, global shutters could make mechanical shutters obsolete. Eliminating a significant source of failure for still photography.

Click to expand...

This shot is quite funny. Don't you have a more recent shot proving actual mechanical shutter are too slow ?

Click to expand...

I do! As does anyone with google. I used this shot because it is such a clear example.

Gon0S said:

As you seem to be aware of this problem, I just want to know which technology managed to get that left shot ? mechanic focal plane shutter ? leaf shutter ? A9 electronic shutter ?

Click to expand...

You already know the answer, and so do I and probably anyone else reading the post. No need to play twenty questions.

I have readily acknowledged - as per my previous language "... in exaggerated form, it's a very old camera" - that focal plane shutter distortion is a corner case with modern focal plane shutters for most use-cases - but it's still a case and only one of the advantages of global shutters.

Gon0S said:

Nevertheless, I agree a faster X-sync would be a bless, I doubt we'll global shutter of high photosites count sensors be amazing before a long time... I may be wrong of course, as I don't live with a SONY sensor designer.

Click to expand...

We can agree on this. The price points haven't moved significantly in recent years, although they do move. They are starting to pop up in reasonably-priced video cameras (e.g., Blackmagic Design 4K Pocket Cinema Camera), so that creates some hope for stills cameras.



--
"THINK" - Watson

Here are some information about the New Lieca S3 and the Fuji MF offereings: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1038918787/photokina-2018-hands-on-with-the-leica-s3

vbuhay said:

vbuhay said:

What is it that you can not do with the latest FX Nikons?

Click to expand...

Its not what I cannot do, but rather I want to do better - Low light BIF/birding for example.

Click to expand...

It's all about lenses.

nathantw said:

OMG, all you people with "theories" on how or why you would shoot medium format is just hilarious.

Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to speak for themselves. I know how I would shoot with it -- YMMV.

nathantw said:

"Can't shoot wide open because depth of field is paper thin." Uh, no it isn't. It's usually f/2.8 or f/4. Is that usually paper thin in full format? No. Well, it isn't in medium format either.

Click to expand...

The point is that equivalence negates the image quality advantage.

nathantw said:

"Medium format is for product and still lifes." Again, nope. It's for whatever makes you happy.

Click to expand...

It's not for:


Very demanding AF here.

Laying on the damp sand and having my $1000 camera and $600 lens hit with a ball covered with wet sand. Not seeing anything like this in the gallery link you offered; in fact, the types of photographs you showed there are more or less what I would expect from a MF digital system.

Did MF film cameras replaced the 35mm film cameras in old days? No. So why something similar can happen now? Cameras are also much more expensive than they were back then. The new Fuji 50R gets much closer considering the price.

But from practicality view, MF cameras, especially of this certain size 44x33 bring negligible advantage. Even the biggest ones like that of Phase One or older Hasselblad H5D-60 have a crop factor around 0.64 which means about +1.33 EV stops advantage on DoF and noise. Does this reminds something? It is near to the difference of APS-C and FF. But cost is way to much above to make it logical for the majority of photographers. Also high resolution FF sensors can reach the DR and high ISO more close to that of MF as they are progressing faster.

Even today I can ask, are the FF the future on cameras. For now yes, but if the progress on sensors continues to the level that you can photograph near dark, then for most uses an APS-C camera will be more than enough. If you consider that even more lenses with wide apertures for APS-C are keep coming then that format will have more future.

At the moment the best quality with some "logic" comes on FF format, the APS-C keeps the best balance, the m4/3 provides the lightest alternative and MF is kept as a niche format as it was.

vbuhay said:

Its not what I cannot do, but rather I want to do better - Low light BIF/birding for example.

Click to expand...

BIF/Birding with MF? >loud laughter<

You're kidding, right? Action photography is NOT the strength of MF.

olyflyer said:

Exactly. As I said to him, he missed the point by miles...

Click to expand...

no, he is Right. Nikon fx will Always be inferior in respect of IQ compared to MF.

mf has shallower DOF and less noise.

if you have mF, you would be silly to stop down, because it would degrade IQ.

MF catches more light than Fx. if not, the you do not yues bright enough lens.

and you can shoot with ISO 50, which is superior to ISO 64.

evarybody has sony fx. sonydoes not have MF. thus you Need MF to beat sony.

and if you do not likte sh shoot bif at night, then do not do it. at night you would not have goo IQ. you should shoot with ISO 50 for good IQ.

that's the law of Physics.

br gusti

The short answer is that these recent MF cameras are quite fast and only a little slower than the high-res FX DSLR cameras.

However, mirrorless FF cameras can be made quite a bit faster than the fastest FX cameras, so they aren't as threatened.

So yes, there will be an MF onslaught and probably more susceptible will be FF DSLRs than FF mirrorless bodies, ceteris paribus.

mcabato said:

olyflyer said:

Exactly. As I said to him, he missed the point by miles...

Click to expand...

no, he is Right. Nikon fx will Always be inferior in respect of IQ compared to MF.

mf has shallower DOF and less noise.

if you have mF, you would be silly to stop down, because it would degrade IQ.

MF catches more light than Fx. if not, the you do not yues bright enough lens.

and you can shoot with ISO 50, which is superior to ISO 64.

evarybody has sony fx. sonydoes not have MF. thus you Need MF to beat sony.

and if you do not likte sh shoot bif at night, then do not do it. at night you would not have goo IQ. you should shoot with ISO 50 for good IQ.

that's the law of Physics.

br gusti

Click to expand...

Even you read VERY selectively and missed the point by even more miles... The subject is sports and action and bif. None of that is MF better at. Period. Nobody talked about IQ, of course MF has better IQ, we are all aware of that. BTW, why would the IQ be reduced if you stop down an MF lens? Aren't you confusing DOF with IQ? Increased DOF is not equal to reduced IQ. Those are two different things.

mcabato said:

olyflyer said:

Exactly. As I said to him, he missed the point by miles...

Click to expand...

no, he is Right. Nikon fx will Always be inferior in respect of IQ compared to MF.

Click to expand...

And you've missed the point by miles as well :-(

mcabato said:

mf has shallower DOF and less noise.

if you have mF, you would be silly to stop down, because it would degrade IQ.

MF catches more light than Fx. if not, the you do not yues bright enough lens.

and you can shoot with ISO 50, which is superior to ISO 64.

evarybody has sony fx. sonydoes not have MF. thus you Need MF to beat sony.

and if you do not likte sh shoot bif at night, then do not do it. at night you would not have goo IQ. you should shoot with ISO 50 for good IQ.

that's the law of Physics.

br gusti

Click to expand...