Fabio Amodeo
Senior Member
May I add a few informations to this thread (at least a pro discussion!). Most studio pros today use multishot backs. It means backs that can shoot 4 or 16 shots of the same subjects, moving slightly the back so that in the end no CCD element has to interpolate anything. This process, good only for still life of course, brings an enormous latitude, with minute tonal changes and no noise. Nothing like this can be brought ourdoors. If you enlarge the images, film from MF will still be superior in 70x100 cm prints, but nobody realy prints this size: mosto of the work goes to press, where you have the advantage that the digital image has no grain to interfere with the screening process. There is also another difference: nobody can grant that film is absolutely flat (apart the 220 back of the Contax 645) while the CCD never moves. At the moment there is a weak point in the process: that MF lenses were never meant to project their image on tiny CCDs, so the very limit is the resolution of Zeiss or Mamiya lenses. I have seen tests made with view cameras (which product pros do not like, because they are slower) and the lenses Rodenstock has computed for digital work, and they are really impressive.
Still I think MF film is still superior for outdoor scenery which is going to end as fine art print. It will take another generation of sensors (and lenses) to get to that point. But had I to shoot wildlife, I would go straight to the Nikon D1x.
Another couple of points. I don't think digital backs are expensive. They come with a lot of software (the image must be perfect BEFORE becoming a TIFF) and all that work is sold with a limited number of backs; and the distributor must be able to support an unbilievable service (every minute out of service, a digital back loses money). We don't ask the same to the people who sell us G2s or Coolipixes.
A last point. The Philips sensor of the next Contax is a relative of the CCDs used in the present generation of digital backs, but it is not the same product. You will never ask a digital back to shoot at ISO 400 or 800, and you will never ask it to shoot sequences. So Philips may use the same layout, but it is a different product.
By the way, Kodak announced, togther with the 16MP back, a 5,5MP sensor good for general photography (SRLs and so on). Apart for the Olympus announcement many months ago, has anybody heard anything obout it?
Good 2002 to all
Fabio
Still I think MF film is still superior for outdoor scenery which is going to end as fine art print. It will take another generation of sensors (and lenses) to get to that point. But had I to shoot wildlife, I would go straight to the Nikon D1x.
Another couple of points. I don't think digital backs are expensive. They come with a lot of software (the image must be perfect BEFORE becoming a TIFF) and all that work is sold with a limited number of backs; and the distributor must be able to support an unbilievable service (every minute out of service, a digital back loses money). We don't ask the same to the people who sell us G2s or Coolipixes.
A last point. The Philips sensor of the next Contax is a relative of the CCDs used in the present generation of digital backs, but it is not the same product. You will never ask a digital back to shoot at ISO 400 or 800, and you will never ask it to shoot sequences. So Philips may use the same layout, but it is a different product.
By the way, Kodak announced, togther with the 16MP back, a 5,5MP sensor good for general photography (SRLs and so on). Apart for the Olympus announcement many months ago, has anybody heard anything obout it?
Good 2002 to all
Fabio