Hasselblad H series discontinued.

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

Aliasing is the limitation on resolution in many cases. At 100 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/11 to f/16 is necessary to visually eliminate aliasing. At 400 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/5.6 to f/8 would be necessary to visually eliminate aliasing.

Click to expand...

BJL said:

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

Aliasing is the limitation on resolution in many cases. At 100 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/11 to f/16 is necessary to visually eliminate aliasing. At 400 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/5.6 to f/8 would be necessary to visually eliminate aliasing.

Click to expand...

I’m not clear about the aliasing issue (do you have a link on that) but diffraction at a given f-stop is also a limit on resolution: at f/11 in 44x33 format, the Airy disks are about three times as wide as the photosites of a 100MP sensor, which sounds like the image delivered by the lens has less sharpness than the sensor can resolve. This suggests that more smaller photosites will add little to image sharpness. (And the DOF/diffraction effects scale the same way for 100MP in any format)

Click to expand...

Nyquist frequency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What’s your Q? - the last word

Another way of looking at the minimum resolvable distance between two points is to turn it on its head and look at spatial frequencies. When we do that, we can restate one of the conclusions of this post as: the upper cutoff spatial frequency of a diffraction–limited lens is one over the Sparrow...

blog.kasson.com

Interpreting Q in the real world - the last word

First off, let me dissuade you from one possible – and erroneous – interpretation of the findings of the last post: “Well, gee, if the sensor can’t resolve all of the detail that my lens can put out at f/8, why don’t I just stop down to f/16, where it will be balanced, and I’ll

blog.kasson.com

BJL said:

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

Aliasing is the limitation on resolution in many cases. At 100 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/11 to f/16 is necessary to visually eliminate aliasing. At 400 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/5.6 to f/8 would be necessary to visually eliminate aliasing.

Click to expand...

I’m not clear about the aliasing issue (do you have a link on that) but diffraction at a given f-stop is also a limit on resolution: at f/11 in 44x33 format, the Airy disks are about three times as wide as the photosites of a 100MP sensor, which sounds like the image delivered by the lens has less sharpness than the sensor can resolve. This suggests that more smaller photosites will add little to image sharpness. (And the DOF/diffraction effects scale the same way for 100MP in any format)

Click to expand...

BJL said:

Teila Day said:

Erik Kaffehr said:

I don't think that Pentax played their cards really well. At 8k$US they should have dominated the market over expensive Phase One and Hasselblad systems, but I don't think they did.

Click to expand...

Hello Erik - You're correct, Pentax mishandled the 645D/Z. A textbook example of an excellent product fielded by the wrong company.

BJL said:

Fujifilm and Hasselblad were more successful in getting market domination, essentially by making small medium format attractive.

Click to expand...

Yes. Fuji did exactly what I'd expect from a company interested in the long term capitalization on their products - they offered a solid system and a solid, modern lens range. Pentax rested on its laurels, relying on older lenses and few new ones. The older lenses (even lightly revamped) could've been parlayed into a larger advantage for film and digital photographers.

Had they fielded more new lenses, + offering modern coatings on the old lens designs, Pentax would've had a strong lens selection, while at the same time slowly replacing a good number of the older lenses with modern designs that would standup to much higher resolutions (e.g. 200mp at least)

Pentax squandered the opportunity to build themselves up and well-distinguish the brand from other MF offerings.

All that is easy for me to say sitting at a desk and not knowing what monetary obstacles the company is having to deal with. I could also find fault with Nikon, Canon and about any other camera brand that I've used -- the bottom line is that overall my assessment regarding those brands (including Pentax) is that they all produced fine cameras and I've truly enjoyed the results of their labor. It's especially hard for me to find fault with Pentax's 645Z.

BJL said:

The Fujifilm XT4, Sony A7rV, Fujifilm GFX 100S and Phase One IQ4150 share the same basic pixel design. So, the larger format cameras essentially have more pixels.

To make best use of those pixels we may need excellent lenses and excellent focusing accuracy, combined with low shutter/mirror related vibrations.

Click to expand...

Yes. The advantage of mirrorless shines in that regard (vibrations), though I'm typically not remotely affected by such in any meaningful practical way like others may be.

BJL said:

I would think that Fujifilm, Hasselblad X and Sony has optimized their systems around affordable 33x44 mm, being aware of the forthcoming 100 MP sensor, while setting pricing at level comparable to high end 24x36 mm.

Click to expand...

The price is indeed very comparable to premium cameras that are one format smaller. I think the modern lenses fielded in the last few years, would have at the very least 100mp in their sights for longevity, though I'd hope for at least 200mp lens designs.

BJL said:

I would also think that Hasselblad X and Fujifilm GFX lens systems are good enough for a couple more generations of the Sony sensors, like say 150 MP and 250 MP.

Click to expand...

I think and hope you're right as I'm hoping to see interesting development on the MF front by the time I'm ready to click the "buy" button again. I'm not too keen on less than 150mp and hope 200mp is available in the next iteration or two.

BJL said:

Best regards

Erik

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree that Pentax was eventually held back by seeking compatibility with 645 format SLR technology—both the lenses and the body with a 645-sized reflex viewfinder system; Fujifilm and Hasselblad instead went in a good direction by designing mirrorless body and lens systems from scratch, without the baggage of matching a film format (either 36x24mm or the 56x42mm of so-called 645 format).

Click to expand...

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

BJL said:

My estimate is that, improving image detail beyond what a 100MP Bayer CFA sensor gives limits one to having that much detail only over a shallow range of subject distances, corresponding to what DOF scales suggest for less than f/2 in 35mm format: that is, an in-focus range like what one sees at less than f/2 in an image from 35mm format viewed "normally". That sounds like like a limit to almost flat subjects (art repro.?), landscapes with only distant subjects needing to be in focus, aerial photography, and astrophotography.

Click to expand...

Teila Day said:

I'm going to stay in my lane and leave the tech stuff to other posters - however what I zero in on, are the practical implications of a given system. When I'm shooting at F/14, the reality is that after post processing, and after the print is made, the difference between f/14 and f/8 (image quality, not DOF) often is mere academic. To me the most important aspect when it comes to resolution and overall image quality, is the real-world trade-offs/benefit ratio. If a bit more depth of field is worth what amounts to a practically imperceptible loss in image quality - then the trade off (compromising image quality for additional DOF) may (or may not) be well worth it to a photographer.

Click to expand...

Rob de Loe said:

Teila Day said:

I'm going to stay in my lane and leave the tech stuff to other posters - however what I zero in on, are the practical implications of a given system. When I'm shooting at F/14, the reality is that after post processing, and after the print is made, the difference between f/14 and f/8 (image quality, not DOF) often is mere academic. To me the most important aspect when it comes to resolution and overall image quality, is the real-world trade-offs/benefit ratio. If a bit more depth of field is worth what amounts to a practically imperceptible loss in image quality - then the trade off (compromising image quality for additional DOF) may (or may not) be well worth it to a photographer.

Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

I pulled up the set of images I'm making for a project. Currently 39 candidates have made the first cut.



The fastest aperture is f/8, and there are only 5 of those. Nine of them needed to be f/16 to be the images I wanted -- so diffraction be damned. I could glue the aperture ring on my lenses down to f/11 and get by, because that's what I shoot most of the time.

I don't care if the f/5.6 version would have been sharper in some parts of the image if it would have left other parts blurry that needed to be in focus. My goal is a successful photograph.

This is with a GFX 100S by the way -- further compounding the sacrilege.

Click to expand...

Rob de Loe said:

I pulled up the set of images I'm making for a project. Currently 39 candidates have made the first cut.



The fastest aperture is f/8, and there are only 5 of those. Nine of them needed to be f/16 to be the images I wanted -- so diffraction be damned. I could glue the aperture ring on my lenses down to f/11 and get by, because that's what I shoot most of the time.

Click to expand...

Rob de Loe said:

I don't care if the f/5.6 version would have been sharper in some parts of the image if it would have left other parts blurry that needed to be in focus. My goal is a successful photograph.

Click to expand...

blur management - the last word

blog.kasson.com

Rob de Loe said:

This is with a GFX 100S by the way -- further compounding the sacrilege.

Click to expand...

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

Rob de Loe said:

Teila Day said:

I'm going to stay in my lane and leave the tech stuff to other posters - however what I zero in on, are the practical implications of a given system. When I'm shooting at F/14, the reality is that after post processing, and after the print is made, the difference between f/14 and f/8 (image quality, not DOF) often is mere academic. To me the most important aspect when it comes to resolution and overall image quality, is the real-world trade-offs/benefit ratio. If a bit more depth of field is worth what amounts to a practically imperceptible loss in image quality - then the trade off (compromising image quality for additional DOF) may (or may not) be well worth it to a photographer.

Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

I pulled up the set of images I'm making for a project. Currently 39 candidates have made the first cut.



The fastest aperture is f/8, and there are only 5 of those. Nine of them needed to be f/16 to be the images I wanted -- so diffraction be damned. I could glue the aperture ring on my lenses down to f/11 and get by, because that's what I shoot most of the time.

Click to expand...

Rob de Loe said:

I don't care if the f/5.6 version would have been sharper in some parts of the image if it would have left other parts blurry that needed to be in focus. My goal is a successful photograph.

Click to expand...

Rob de Loe said:

This is with a GFX 100S by the way -- further compounding the sacrilege.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

Aliasing is the limitation on resolution in many cases. At 100 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/11 to f/16 is necessary to visually eliminate aliasing. At 400 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/5.6 to f/8 would be necessary to visually eliminate aliasing.

Click to expand...

I’m not clear about the aliasing issue (do you have a link on that) but diffraction at a given f-stop is also a limit on resolution: at f/11 in 44x33 format, the Airy disks are about three times as wide as the photosites of a 100MP sensor, which sounds like the image delivered by the lens has less sharpness than the sensor can resolve. This suggests that more smaller photosites will add little to image sharpness. (And the DOF/diffraction effects scale the same way for 100MP in any format)

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/whats-your-q/

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/interpreting-q-in-the-real-world/

First off, I think you are talking about the size of the Airy disks between the first zeros, which I don't think is the best way to look at diffraction blur, especially when combined with other types of blur. I think the diameter than encircles 70% of the energy (EE70) is a better metric. Second, in the absence of an AA filter, and with a Bayer CFA, you need EE70 diameters substantially larger than the pixel pitch to avoid aliasing. If there's no aliasing, you can do deconvolution sharpening. That doesn't work if there's aliasing.

Click to expand...

BJL said:

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

JimKasson said:

BJL said:

However, there is one limitation of going beyond "100MP worth of resolution" regardless of sensor size, which I expect will limit it to special-purpose niches: no matter how many pixels a sensor has, resolution is also limited by aperture choices, and to go beyond what a 100MP sensor can record requires controlling diffraction sufficiently, which requires apertures large enough (aperture ratios low enough) that DOF is inherently very shallow. Roughly, at any give f-stop, reducing pixel pitch below about half that f-stop will not significantly improve image detail, because diffraction will be the dominant limit on resolution.

Click to expand...

Aliasing is the limitation on resolution in many cases. At 100 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/11 to f/16 is necessary to visually eliminate aliasing. At 400 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor, f/5.6 to f/8 would be necessary to visually eliminate aliasing.

Click to expand...

I’m not clear about the aliasing issue (do you have a link on that) but diffraction at a given f-stop is also a limit on resolution: at f/11 in 44x33 format, the Airy disks are about three times as wide as the photosites of a 100MP sensor, which sounds like the image delivered by the lens has less sharpness than the sensor can resolve. This suggests that more smaller photosites will add little to image sharpness. (And the DOF/diffraction effects scale the same way for 100MP in any format)

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/whats-your-q/

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/interpreting-q-in-the-real-world/

First off, I think you are talking about the size of the Airy disks between the first zeros, which I don't think is the best way to look at diffraction blur, especially when combined with other types of blur. I think the diameter than encircles 70% of the energy (EE70) is a better metric. Second, in the absence of an AA filter, and with a Bayer CFA, you need EE70 diameters substantially larger than the pixel pitch to avoid aliasing. If there's no aliasing, you can do deconvolution sharpening. That doesn't work if there's aliasing.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim,

I thing the difference is that I am talking about the detail to be seen in the "raw" image whereas you are allowing for post-processing with deconvolution sharpening — where it seems that smaller apertures taking one into the realm of "oversampling" can actually become an advantage.

Click to expand...