just for fun

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,902
just for fun
3

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 14,699
Re: just for fun
10

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ?

Yes.

I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ?

Cleaner, higher resolution images that particularly have smoother skin tones. Also, better optics.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +2 more
Donald B
OP Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,902
Re: just for fun
3

Mark Scott Abeln wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ?

Yes.

I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ?

Cleaner, higher resolution images that particularly have smoother skin tones. Also, better optics.

Have you an example of smoother skin tones because i for the like of me cant find any prof of that. but then you contradict your statement by saying higher resolution better optics what not so sharp ? for smoother skin tones ? also the make up artist has the most influence on crappy skin tone in the first place. and what if you shooting a male how does the myth smother skin tone come into effect

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Leswick II Senior Member • Posts: 1,415
Re: just for fun

Meh, most folks don't want 36" print (you do ?) > tho you'll likely see it in gallery or museum.  My 5x7 is capable w/o all those massive pixels.

Dexter75 Senior Member • Posts: 2,891
Re: just for fun
8

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Have a look here at just a few examples, especially the top middle one with the red and blue colors. Then look at the fashion and beauty shots below it. Zoom all the way in and look at the detail and clarity. You aren't going to get that in any 20 megapixel camera on the planet. In fact, you aren't getting anywhere close to that in any 40 megapixel camera either. You could make a massive print out of that and it would still look stunning with zero pixelation a foot in front of your face.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Gallery

Donald B
OP Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,902
Re: just for fun
1

Leswick II wrote:

Meh, most folks don't want 36" print (you do ?) > tho you'll likely see it in gallery or museum. My 5x7 is capable w/o all those massive pixels.

Exactly i rarely print anything greater than a1 . i would like someone with the time on their hands to produce a graph to show the overlap point to printed image size detail vers m.pixels between all systems Its not going to happen it would get taken down instantly.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Donald B
OP Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,902
Re: just for fun
2

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Have a look here at just a few examples, especially the top middle one with the red and blue colors. Then look at the fashion and beauty shots below it. Zoom all the way in and look at the detail and clarity. You aren't going to get that in any 20 megapixel camera on the planet. In fact, you aren't getting anywhere close to that in any 40 megapixel camera either. You could make a massive print out of that and it would still look stunning with zero pixelation a foot in front of your face.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Gallery

yes but who is printing bill board images at 300 dpi ? the max i see every time i walk past a fashion house is 20pdi and if you print a good a2 the 20meg will trounce it on detail 'printed" because the printer algarithms are going to make a mess of the 150meg file. by the way i have taken a 260meg image with my em12 I stacked 12 80meg images just to have a look

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Dexter75 Senior Member • Posts: 2,891
Re: just for fun
11

Donald B wrote:

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Have a look here at just a few examples, especially the top middle one with the red and blue colors. Then look at the fashion and beauty shots below it. Zoom all the way in and look at the detail and clarity. You aren't going to get that in any 20 megapixel camera on the planet. In fact, you aren't getting anywhere close to that in any 40 megapixel camera either. You could make a massive print out of that and it would still look stunning with zero pixelation a foot in front of your face.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Gallery

yes but who is printing bill board images at 300 dpi ? the max i see every time i walk past a fashion house is 20pdi and if you print a good a2 the 20meg will trounce it on detail 'printed" because the printer algarithms are going to make a mess of the 150meg file. by the way i have taken a 260meg image with my em12 I stacked 12 80meg images just to have a look

Don

Has nothing to do with printing. Look at those images. you can't get that clarity and detail with a 20-40 megapixel camera. Its the difference between 4k and 720p, there is no comparison.

Donald B
OP Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,902
Re: just for fun
3

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Have a look here at just a few examples, especially the top middle one with the red and blue colors. Then look at the fashion and beauty shots below it. Zoom all the way in and look at the detail and clarity. You aren't going to get that in any 20 megapixel camera on the planet. In fact, you aren't getting anywhere close to that in any 40 megapixel camera either. You could make a massive print out of that and it would still look stunning with zero pixelation a foot in front of your face.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Gallery

yes but who is printing bill board images at 300 dpi ? the max i see every time i walk past a fashion house is 20pdi and if you print a good a2 the 20meg will trounce it on detail 'printed" because the printer algarithms are going to make a mess of the 150meg file. by the way i have taken a 260meg image with my em12 I stacked 12 80meg images just to have a look

Don

Has nothing to do with printing. Look at those images. you can't get that clarity and detail with a 20-40 megapixel camera. Its the difference between 4k and 720p, there is no comparison.

Thats the thing you need 32k screen to see any clarity out of a 150meg sensor . I printed a nice a4 image last week from a d810 and then a similar image from em52 16 meg and the clarity was way better with the smaller file than the larger file. so wheres the overlap ? 40 inch print ? 60 inch ?

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

tony field Forum Pro • Posts: 10,561
Re: just for fun
1

I seldom print A1 size prints and my normal maximum is A2. When I compare the Canon 5D Mark 3 at 22 megapixels to the hasselblad H5 with 50 megapixels at these prints sizes there is little difference in visual quality. In a practical sense the only difference is more convenient editing if serious editing is needs to be done.  I rarely have the opportunity to shoot with the H5.

I hope the Fuji camera would provide a more discernible improvement.

The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)

-- hide signature --

Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Dexter75 Senior Member • Posts: 2,891
Re: just for fun

Donald B wrote:

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Dexter75 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Have a look here at just a few examples, especially the top middle one with the red and blue colors. Then look at the fashion and beauty shots below it. Zoom all the way in and look at the detail and clarity. You aren't going to get that in any 20 megapixel camera on the planet. In fact, you aren't getting anywhere close to that in any 40 megapixel camera either. You could make a massive print out of that and it would still look stunning with zero pixelation a foot in front of your face.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Gallery

yes but who is printing bill board images at 300 dpi ? the max i see every time i walk past a fashion house is 20pdi and if you print a good a2 the 20meg will trounce it on detail 'printed" because the printer algarithms are going to make a mess of the 150meg file. by the way i have taken a 260meg image with my em12 I stacked 12 80meg images just to have a look

Don

Has nothing to do with printing. Look at those images. you can't get that clarity and detail with a 20-40 megapixel camera. Its the difference between 4k and 720p, there is no comparison.

Thats the thing you need 32k screen to see any clarity out of a 150meg sensor . I printed a nice a4 image last week from a d810 and then a similar image from em52 16 meg and the clarity was way better with the smaller file than the larger file. so wheres the overlap ? 40 inch print ? 60 inch ?

Don

I can see the difference clear as day on my 6 inch iPhone screen. Ive never seen that level of clarity or detail from a 5D Mark II or any other 20 megapixel camera. Not even close.

Running on empty
Running on empty Regular Member • Posts: 189
Re: just for fun

tony field wrote:

I seldom print A1 size prints and my normal maximum is A2. When I compare the Canon 5D Mark 3 at 22 megapixels to the hasselblad H5 with 50 megapixels at these prints sizes there is little difference in visual quality. In a practical sense the only difference is more convenient editing if serious editing is needs to be done. I rarely have the opportunity to shoot with the H5.

I hope the Fuji camera would provide a more discernible improvement.

The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)

Could you elaborate more on that last bit?

Is it amusing because they call a sensor so small medium format?

What would be a better word for a sensor of that size--i.e., one merely larger than FF?

Running on empty
Running on empty Regular Member • Posts: 189
Re: just for fun
1

Donald B wrote:

Have you ever wondered what it would be like using the 100meg fuji ? well i just printed a 36 inch print (cropped section) from both the 100 meg and the 20 meg em12 and at normal veiwing distance i couldnt see any extra sharpness or detail at 300 mm . Now got out the macro lens and you could see more detail on the 100 meg image . not as much as i would of thought but was easily visible. I always wondered why do portrait photogs want mF ? it must be for the rendering because its definatly not for detail on typical print sizes.

Don

Most curious!

This seems to be a prime example of a phenomenon known as "inattentional blindness."

tony field Forum Pro • Posts: 10,561
Re: just for fun
1

Running on empty wrote:

tony field wrote:

I seldom print A1 size prints and my normal maximum is A2. When I compare the Canon 5D Mark 3 at 22 megapixels to the hasselblad H5 with 50 megapixels at these prints sizes there is little difference in visual quality. In a practical sense the only difference is more convenient editing if serious editing is needs to be done. I rarely have the opportunity to shoot with the H5.

I hope the Fuji camera would provide a more discernible improvement.

The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)

Could you elaborate more on that last bit?

Is it amusing because they call a sensor so small medium format?

What would be a better word for a sensor of that size--i.e., one merely larger than FF?

I am an ex film shooter. My idea of medium format is 6x6 centimetres or 6x9 cm  or 6x4.5 cm etc. If a new name were really necessary I would call it digital MF

-- hide signature --

Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Running on empty
Running on empty Regular Member • Posts: 189
Re: just for fun
1

tony field wrote:

Running on empty wrote:

tony field wrote:

I seldom print A1 size prints and my normal maximum is A2. When I compare the Canon 5D Mark 3 at 22 megapixels to the hasselblad H5 with 50 megapixels at these prints sizes there is little difference in visual quality. In a practical sense the only difference is more convenient editing if serious editing is needs to be done. I rarely have the opportunity to shoot with the H5.

I hope the Fuji camera would provide a more discernible improvement.

The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)

Could you elaborate more on that last bit?

Is it amusing because they call a sensor so small medium format?

What would be a better word for a sensor of that size--i.e., one merely larger than FF?

I am an ex film shooter. My idea of medium format is 6x6 centimetres or 6x9 cm or 6x4.5 cm etc. If a new name were really necessary I would call it digital MF

I see where you're coming from.

The problem is that these manufacturers exploit the poor definition of "medium format" as a "sensor larger than 35mm" to peddle these "pseudo-MF" cameras--perhaps to those who cannot afford digital MF sensors sized more like their film counterparts.

I'm waiting for someone to come along and sell a 38x25mm "medium format" camera one of these days.

marcio_napoli Senior Member • Posts: 1,624
Re: just for fun
6

Quoting Tony: "The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)"

My job here is not to convince you otherwise.

By the words you've used, it's clear your idea of MF is set.

I'll just offer my rant, which nobody cares.

I've used the 44x33 and 49x36 sensors in CCD digital backs. To me, they're both digital medium format.

If I were to ask you, do you consider APS-C part of the 135 format family?

I believe it does, and 99% of photographers believe as well.

If you shoot APS-C, H, and FF, they're all within the 135 format, because lenses are shared in a common system, and the look of images, feature set, body size, ergonomics, etc, are all reasonably consistent accross the board.

So are we cool to say that APS is part of the 35 mm format?

In the same way, why wouldn't 44x33 be MF?

It's larger than 35mm, it shares lenses within the 645 format (in case of Hassy and P1 systems) and provide a look that compares very well with the larger MF sensors.

Despite old film definitions, you have a 44x33 camera.

Even if small by film MF standards, you've actually seen the sensor size.

It's massive.

Film equivalent or not, it's really massive and clearly bigger than 135 format.

IMO, all above are enough to classify it as DMF.

Best regards,
Marcio Napoli

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 23,231
Re: just for fun
9

marcio_napoli wrote:

Quoting Tony: "The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)"

My job here is not to convince you otherwise.

By the words you've used, it's clear your idea of MF is set.

I'll just offer my rant, which nobody cares.

I've used the 44x33 and 49x36 sensors in CCD digital backs. To me, they're both digital medium format.

If I were to ask you, do you consider APS-C part of the 135 format family?

I believe it does, and 99% of photographers believe as well.

If you shoot APS-C, H, and FF, they're all within the 135 format, because lenses are shared in a common system, and the look of images, feature set, body size, ergonomics, etc, are all reasonably consistent accross the board.

So are we cool to say that APS is part of the 35 mm format?

In the same way, why wouldn't 44x33 be MF?

It's larger than 35mm, it shares lenses within the 645 format (in case of Hassy and P1 systems) and provide a look that compares very well with the larger MF sensors.

Despite old film definitions, you have a 44x33 camera.

Even if small by film MF standards, you've actually seen the sensor size.

It's massive.

Film equivalent or not, it's really massive and clearly bigger than 135 format.

IMO, all above are enough to classify it as DMF.

Best regards,
Marcio Napoli

The two flaws I see in this thread are as follows....thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp in information....and this other fellow on his crusade that the Fuji and Hassey aren't MF.

The first, thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp is factually false. As such, the OPs comparison holds no water.

The second, the definition of MF, is simply another user ID for a longtime troll. As I have the Fuji 50r, he went on a crusade claiming it wasn't MF simply as a way for him the poke fun at me...and of course fail miserably. As to the true definition...MF has always been formats larger than 35mm and smaller than 4x5. Using his failed logic, I could claim 645 or 6x6 is not really MF because 6x7 or 6x9 or 6x17 exists.  There is no poor definition of MF to exploit...the definition has been clear and accepted for decades.  The only people that refuse to accept it appear to be those that don't like their top perch of so called fullframe to be challenged.

Back to the OP, he started with a false assumption in his comparison and as such reached a false conclusion. If he wants to compare what 100mp really looks like, he won't get it with any Olympus.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +17 more
tony field Forum Pro • Posts: 10,561
Re: just for fun

The Davinator wrote:

marcio_napoli wrote:

Quoting Tony: "The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)"

My job here is not to convince you otherwise.

By the words you've used, it's clear your idea of MF is set.

I'll just offer my rant, which nobody cares.

I've used the 44x33 and 49x36 sensors in CCD digital backs. To me, they're both digital medium format.

If I were to ask you, do you consider APS-C part of the 135 format family?

I believe it does, and 99% of photographers believe as well.

If you shoot APS-C, H, and FF, they're all within the 135 format, because lenses are shared in a common system, and the look of images, feature set, body size, ergonomics, etc, are all reasonably consistent accross the board.

So are we cool to say that APS is part of the 35 mm format?

In the same way, why wouldn't 44x33 be MF?

It's larger than 35mm, it shares lenses within the 645 format (in case of Hassy and P1 systems) and provide a look that compares very well with the larger MF sensors.

Despite old film definitions, you have a 44x33 camera.

Even if small by film MF standards, you've actually seen the sensor size.

It's massive.

Film equivalent or not, it's really massive and clearly bigger than 135 format.

IMO, all above are enough to classify it as DMF.

Best regards,
Marcio Napoli

The two flaws I see in this thread are as follows....thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp in information....and this other fellow on his crusade that the Fuji and Hassey aren't MF.

The first, thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp is factually false. As such, the OPs comparison holds no water.

The second, the definition of MF, is simply another user ID for a longtime troll.

Who is this troll you are talking about??

As I have the Fuji 50r, he went on a crusade claiming it wasn't MF simply as a way for him the poke fun at me...and of course fail miserably. As to the true definition...MF has always been formats larger than 35mm and smaller than 4x5. Using his failed logic, I could claim 645 or 6x6 is not really MF because 6x7 or 6x9 or 6x17 exists. There is no poor definition of MF to exploit...the definition has been clear and accepted for decades. The only people that refuse to accept it appear to be those that don't like their top perch of so called fullframe to be challenged.

Back to the OP, he started with a false assumption in his comparison and as such reached a false conclusion. If he wants to compare what 100mp really looks like, he won't get it with any Olympus.

-- hide signature --

Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

Running on empty
Running on empty Regular Member • Posts: 189
Re: just for fun
2

tony field wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

marcio_napoli wrote:

Quoting Tony: "The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)"

My job here is not to convince you otherwise.

By the words you've used, it's clear your idea of MF is set.

I'll just offer my rant, which nobody cares.

I've used the 44x33 and 49x36 sensors in CCD digital backs. To me, they're both digital medium format.

If I were to ask you, do you consider APS-C part of the 135 format family?

I believe it does, and 99% of photographers believe as well.

If you shoot APS-C, H, and FF, they're all within the 135 format, because lenses are shared in a common system, and the look of images, feature set, body size, ergonomics, etc, are all reasonably consistent accross the board.

So are we cool to say that APS is part of the 35 mm format?

In the same way, why wouldn't 44x33 be MF?

It's larger than 35mm, it shares lenses within the 645 format (in case of Hassy and P1 systems) and provide a look that compares very well with the larger MF sensors.

Despite old film definitions, you have a 44x33 camera.

Even if small by film MF standards, you've actually seen the sensor size.

It's massive.

Film equivalent or not, it's really massive and clearly bigger than 135 format.

IMO, all above are enough to classify it as DMF.

Best regards,
Marcio Napoli

The two flaws I see in this thread are as follows....thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp in information....and this other fellow on his crusade that the Fuji and Hassey aren't MF.

The first, thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp is factually false. As such, the OPs comparison holds no water.

The second, the definition of MF, is simply another user ID for a longtime troll.

Who is this troll you are talking about??

He is falsely accusing me of being a troll as a way to discredit the position, which I happen to share with you, that these relatively small-sensor digital MF cameras are downright amusing.

Why anyone would be seemingly so insecure about their gear choices as to stoop so low is beyond me...

I don't want to hurt his feelings, so I'll bow out of this thread.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 45,546
Re: just for fun
6

tony field wrote:

I seldom print A1 size prints and my normal maximum is A2. When I compare the Canon 5D Mark 3 at 22 megapixels to the hasselblad H5 with 50 megapixels at these prints sizes there is little difference in visual quality. In a practical sense the only difference is more convenient editing if serious editing is needs to be done. I rarely have the opportunity to shoot with the H5.

I hope the Fuji camera would provide a more discernible improvement.

The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)

Then you will agree that the Canon 1.6 crop format is not APS-C?

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads