G vs Z

[KWNJr]

I don't get why that 50mm f1.8 lens has to be that big. It's not fast and there is no stabilization.

Nikon claims near zero aberrations wide open. "Near zero aberrations wide open" is Otus territory. The mount is 44x33 in diameter which Nikon claims provides more light. Might be some good reasons for it.

Did Nikon start using a rectangular mount

Good one. I missed that.

jim

I don't get it.

Look at the bold text above

--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

 

[JimKasson]

I don't get why that 50mm f1.8 lens has to be that big. It's not fast and there is no stabilization.

Nikon claims near zero aberrations wide open. "Near zero aberrations wide open" is Otus territory. The mount is 44x33 in diameter which Nikon claims provides more light. Might be some good reasons for it.

Did Nikon start using a rectangular mount

Good one. I missed that.

jim

I don't get it.

It is conventional practice to specify the diameter of a circular mount as a scalar. If specified as a vector, confusion in the minds of the audience may result. What could that possibly mean? One way of resolving the confusion is to speculate that the mount is not in fact circular. That's going to make it difficult to twist the bayonet into place, and thus there is cognitive dissonance.

Jim

 

[Querelle]

the movement away from the smaller MF 6x6, 6x45 formats to 35mm in the 90ies was not driven by cost ! grain and resolution of film improved much in this time, think of velvia, provia... , lenses improved too but most important autofocus made work much faster and reliable for professionals ! a lot of fashion photographers I knew moved in this direction. same happens now with high res FF mirrorless.

I tend to think cost is one of the largest factors of MF falling out of favor. Depending on your age, you will recall everyone and their mother shooting MF; and arguably for scores of citizens, it was the most common everyday format used. Mom wanted to take a photo of kids at a picnic? MF. "Photo clubs"? MF. Underground porn? MF. Boutique shop that photographed their own dresses, hats, scarfs and shoes? MF.

...but the reason for 120 amateur cameras in the past was not based on image quality but on easy coping, less demanding lenses and primitive transport mechanisms.

By the end of the '70's, MF use had waned and in the '80's.... generally speaking across the U.S., about the only people you saw using the format were enthusiasts and working photographers. By the late 90's, MF didn't stand a chance (or any other film camera for that matter) because digital photography was what most people preferred and now they had access to it. Buy a Nikon F6, Rollei (etc) or Digital?... the choice was easy for most people, even those shooting for pay, and an especially easy decision for those shooting internet content. The cost reduction & benefit gained for an overwhelming number of photographers was just too significant to even debate. Recall the disdain for pros who adopted digital early on.

By year 2000.. film made less sense and MF film and associated cameras were obviously going to go the way of the Dodo bird... which (basically)... they did.

because it was clear to see that the difference between mf film and the smaller format based digital capture was not great, in some aspects digital already surpassed mf film but it is also importained that at this time mf had not much advantage over 35mm they used the same small sensors. the only benefit of mf backs was that they could be easily attach to a view camera. but at the same time a huge shift in the product photography market happened too at least in europe, mail-order companies stopped producing their printed catalogs which made a large part of income for many studio photographer. so investment where put on hold.

those who shot people for advertising or fashion had zero problems to adapt to the new technology and abandon mf completely because mf cameras simply sucked compared to the performance level of 35mm. the only MF-AF camera in the late 90ies was a horrible mamyia with horrible glass, so 15 years since the introduction of autofocus the MF world had still nothing to compete and with the improvements of film this was the real reason why MF disappeared so fast !!! the hasselblad h came much to late to the party and although expansive the body still felt cheap compared to a canon 1ds ! so in the golden years of MF the companies did zero to advance technology the only little exaption was fuji with the gf680.

 

[Teila Day]

the movement away from the smaller MF 6x6, 6x45 formats to 35mm in the 90ies was not driven by cost ! grain and resolution of film improved much in this time, think of velvia, provia... , lenses improved too but most important autofocus made work much faster and reliable for professionals ! a lot of fashion photographers I knew moved in this direction. same happens now with high res FF mirrorless.

I tend to think cost is one of the largest factors of MF falling out of favor. Depending on your age, you will recall everyone and their mother shooting MF; and arguably for scores of citizens, it was the most common everyday format used. Mom wanted to take a photo of kids at a picnic? MF. "Photo clubs"? MF. Underground porn? MF. Boutique shop that photographed their own dresses, hats, scarfs and shoes? MF.

...but the reason for 120 amateur cameras in the past was not based on image quality but on easy coping, less demanding lenses and primitive transport mechanisms.

Amateur vs. pro featured MF wasn't being debated I simply brought to light that MF was at one time the typical camera used by people across the board.

By the end of the '70's, MF use had waned and in the '80's.... generally speaking across the U.S., about the only people you saw using the format were enthusiasts and working photographers. By the late 90's, MF didn't stand a chance (or any other film camera for that matter) because digital photography was what most people preferred and now they had access to it. Buy a Nikon F6, Rollei (etc) or Digital?... the choice was easy for most people, even those shooting for pay, and an especially easy decision for those shooting internet content. The cost reduction & benefit gained for an overwhelming number of photographers was just too significant to even debate. Recall the disdain for pros who adopted digital early on.

By year 2000.. film made less sense and MF film and associated cameras were obviously going to go the way of the Dodo bird... which (basically)... they did.

because it was clear to see that the difference between mf film and the smaller format based digital capture was not great,

Actually it took years before digital surpassed MF film, but by the time digital was even a household tool, MF film was out of favor and hardly relevant outside of professional circles. Most were jumping on the digital bandwagon whether professional or otherwise. The quality difference between MF film and APS-C / FF didn't matter because digital offered far more convenience, speed, and cost savings. No comparison. Generally speaking people didn't care about the increased IQ that MF film offered in the face of digital options.

in some aspects digital already surpassed mf film but it is also importained that at this time mf had not much advantage over 35mm they used the same small sensors. the only benefit of mf backs was that they could be easily attach to a view camera.

There were more practical benefits than that; relatively few were using backs on view cameras. The old backs offered a clearer file without the "haze" one had to deal with shooting APS-C or FF, while offering additional pixels. FF cameras didn't really make a good attempt to catch up to MF digital until years later (Nikon D800 comes to mind).

but at the same time a huge shift in the product photography market happened too at least in europe, mail-order companies stopped producing their printed catalogs which made a large part of income for many studio photographer. so investment where put on hold.

The greater market shift was mostly due to digital photography as a whole. Print catalogs were replaced by more efficient, cheaper-to-publish online catalogs, and catalog photography (fashion) was done in-house at a lot of design businesses.

those who shot people for advertising or fashion had zero problems to adapt to the new technology and abandon mf completely because mf cameras simply sucked compared to the performance level of 35mm.

A disagree with that assertion. IQ was always better than 35mm whether we're talking about MF (film) or (arguably) MF digital. About the only practical advantage 35mm offered in fashion over MF was frame rate which could be a huge time saver when capturing models mid-leap, etc... You could get 8 crisp and sharp frames or more (with studio strobes as the shutter), vs. only 1 MF frame in the span of 1 second. High iso performance was the other advantage... until MF CMOS, the useable MF ISO range was limited.

the only MF-AF camera in the late 90ies was a horrible mamyia with horrible glass, so 15 years since the introduction of autofocus the MF world had still nothing to compete and with the improvements of film this was the real reason why MF disappeared so fast !!!

I can assure you AF didn't doom MF, especially since a significant number of MF shooters manually focus much of the time anyway.

the hasselblad h came much to late to the party and although expansive the body still felt cheap compared to a canon 1ds ! so in the golden years of MF the companies did zero to advance technology the only little exaption was fuji with the gf680.

There wasn't an incentive to innovate; no real pressure was exerted in the way of FF innovation that put heat to MF offerings, unlike today. In the mid to late naughts, the gulf between FF and MF was clearly defined and it didn't matter that MF digital only offered a single, slow focus point in the middle of the frame and a frame rate of less than 1fps; because the MF advantages over shadowed the pitfalls.

Today, FF has ditched the AA filter and offers 50mp which puts pressure on the MF market when attempting to woo the price/benefit conscious business owner, photographer or artist. So in order for a MF purchase to make sense, more has to be offered in upcoming models ... and I'm betting more -will- be offered.

Whether or not larger sensors in the form of something similar to 6x6, 6x7, etc., isn't even a question..

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com